Gender and the Economy

Category: Research Overviews

4-5 page overviews of debates in scholarly research on hot topics

  • Working beyond the gender binary

    Working beyond the gender binary

    [fusion_builder_container admin_label=”” hundred_percent=”no” equal_height_columns=”no” menu_anchor=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”center center” background_repeat=”no-repeat” fade=”no” background_parallax=”none” enable_mobile=”no” parallax_speed=”0.3″ video_mp4=”” video_webm=”” video_ogv=”” video_url=”” video_aspect_ratio=”16:9″ video_loop=”yes” video_mute=”yes” video_preview_image=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” margin_top=”20″ margin_bottom=”” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” type=”legacy”][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=”3_4″ layout=”3_4″ spacing=”” center_content=”no” hover_type=”none” link=”” min_height=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”left top” background_repeat=”no-repeat” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” last=”false” border_sizes_top=”0″ border_sizes_bottom=”0″ border_sizes_left=”0″ border_sizes_right=”0″ first=”true” spacing_right=””][fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_spacing=”” rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=””]

    Overview

    Remedying workplace gender inequality continues to be a pressing issue for organizations. Companies are taking bold actions to address gendered gaps in wages and workplace promotions like boardroom gender quotas and targeted recruiting. However, current efforts focus almost exclusively on the challenges cisgender (meaning, individuals who identify with the biological sex assigned at birth) women face. This research brief provides an overview of the academic research on the economic and workplaces experiences of trans and nonbinary people, identifying the gaps and topics where more research is needed.

    Current gender equality efforts often neglect the experiences of the estimated 1.5 million adults in the United States and Canada who identify as transgender.

    This matters because it means that an estimated 1.5 million adults in the United States and Canada who identify as trans (meaning, individuals who may not exclusively identify with the biological sex assigned at birth) are neglected.[1] This neglect impacts the effectiveness of everything from data on the gender pay gap to employment equity initiatives. Research continues to show that trans and nonbinary (meaning, individuals who do not identify exclusively as either a man or woman) people face structural barriers, biases, and discrimination at work because of their gender identity and expression, barriers that are more extreme for racialized and gender non-conforming individuals.[2] Nonetheless, the majority of research on gender inequality at work continues examine inequalities between cisgender men and women.

    Demographics are changing, and so are societal views about gender.

    Researchers estimate as many as 12 percent of millennials, who now comprise more than 35 percent of the United States workforce, identify as trans or nonbinary, more than double those from Generation X.[3] A 2019 Pew Research study found those between the ages of 13 and 21 to be more familiar and accepting of gender diversity. They found 35 percent of those surveyed between 13 and 21 knew someone who used gender-neutral pronouns, and 59 percent believed forms and documents should provide gender options beyond “male” and “female.”[4] Organizations should begin thinking beyond the binary not only to support their current employees but also to prepare for the future.

    What the research tells us about trans and nonbinary workers

    Trans and nonbinary people continue to face overt and subtle discrimination at work.

    From over a decade’s worth of qualitative and survey data on the economic experiences of trans and nonbinary people in the United States and Canada, we know that trans and nonbinary people face social barriers and discrimination while seeking to obtain and sustain employment, issues that are compounded for racialized and Indigenous trans people.[5] These include:

    • Overt discrimination and harassment: Overtly discriminatory practice include employers refusing to use the employees’ preferred pronouns and names in the workplace and on formal documents like job reviews, and government-driven policies such as placing restrictions or limitations on transgender people from changing government-issued IDs.[6]
    • Subtle microaggressions: There are also subtle forms of discrimination that trans people face at work called microaggressions. Microaggressions are statements or behaviours that are not intentionally discriminatory but inflict harm by reflecting power imbalances and stereotypes of marginalized groups.[7] This can include the use of transphobic language, like intentionally calling transgender people by their incorrect gender pronoun, or denying the reality of transphobia, like telling a transgender woman who says she’s experienced discrimination that she is being too sensitive.[8]

    Both overt and subtle discrimination undermines well-being and promotes hypervigilance, negatively impacting workplace outcomes.[9]

    Transgender discrimination threatens employment stability, and begins as early as childhood.

    Structural barriers threaten employment stability for trans and nonbinary workers, including inadequate access to trans-affirming healthcare, housing and services discrimination, bullying and isolation, and lack of social support from family due to identity stigma.[10]

    An Ontario-wide survey from 2010 found discrimination to have had systemic impacts on the employment outcomes of trans people:

    • Fifty percent of trans people earn $15,000 or less per year, even though 71 percent have some form of post-secondary education.[11]
    • The unemployment rate for transgender and gender nonconforming respondents in Ontario has been estimated to be 20 percent, more than double the provincial average.[12]

    More recent data from the U.S. Transgender Discrimination Survey reports:

    • Trans people were four times more likely to have a household income of less than $10,000 per year compared the national average in the U.S.[13]
    • Data from this survey found that racialized transgender women, who contend with intersecting marginalizations, including transmisogyny and racism, are subjected to even higher levels of discrimination and violence at work.[14]

    Structural barriers threaten employment stability for trans and nonbinary workers, including inadequate access to trans-affirming healthcare, housing and services discrimination, bullying and isolation, and lack of social support from family due to identity stigma.

    Transphobia also presents considerable barriers to employment even for those who are not initially economically marginalized, especially for trans women. A 2011 national survey found that 90 percent of trans people surveyed reported experiencing employment discrimination, including being fired, denied a promotion or being harassed.[15] However, this does not include trans people who face discrimination while seeking employment. Discriminatory hiring for transgender people has been commonly reported. The first government-run audit study examining the role of gender identity from applicants in the United States found trans people to be significantly less likely than cisgender people to receive a positive response about a job application across job sectors.[16]

    Family conflict has meant that transgender youth disproportionately make up the homeless population in North America.[17] Estimates suggest that LGBTQ youth make up as much as 40% of the homeless population, whereas approximately five to ten percent of youth identify as LGBTQ.[18] These obstacles are the result of historical inequalities due to discrimination including stigma and negative stereotypes about what it means to be a man or a woman.[19] Transgender and nonbinary individuals who experience identity misclassification can have negative psychological impacts, including feeling stigmatized, having a reduced sense of worth, and anxiety and depression.[20]

    Not all transgender people experience the same kinds of discrimination.

    Though it is important to be aware of the discrimination that trans people face as a community. It is also essential to understand that not all trans and nonbinary people face the same kinds of challenges: research demonstrates that trans women of colour have worse employment outcomes than trans men and nonbinary trans individuals; however, black nonbinary individuals have the worst employment outcomes overall.[21] Population-wide data has shown that individuals who are economically marginalized and gender nonconforming have a higher odds of reporting worse health outcomes than transgender and cisgender men and women.[22]

    Empirical data from a 2019 study in the United States demonstrated that organizational context as well as social and economic location impacts employment outcomes. Across more than 300,000 workers in 28 federal agencies in the United States, LGBT women and people of colour reported more negative experiences, including workplace fairness, employee treatment, and job satisfaction, than cisgender men and white LGBT workers.[23]

    Gender diverse data gaps remain

    Due to historical discrimination, transgender people are not represented in national data and are elsewhere insufficiently represented in data collection.[24] This leaves gaps in the data on the population estimates of trans people, a knowledge gap which subsequently impacts the effectiveness of everything from the gender pay gap to employment equity initiatives. More robust data on trans and nonbinary people is important to make visible an often overlooked community and necessary in order to better inform policy.[25]

    Gender diverse data gaps impact the effectiveness of everything from the gender pay gap to employment equity initiatives. These gaps include:

    Population data: In Canada, for example, pay equity data is calculated from census data based only on biological sex. Current employment equity strategies for the City of Toronto, for example, rely upon census data to evaluate workforce percentage representation against Toronto population estimates. Though trans people are identified as an equity-seeking group, they are bundled into the larger Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, Queer, Two-Spirit (LGBTQ2S) communities, who due to discrimination, have been historically excluded from the census. Data from the 2018 City of Toronto public services survey show a 4 percent workforce representation for LGBTQ2S communities; however, since there is no official LGBTQ2 population estimate, and no disaggregation of trans and nonbinary specific data, employment equity for trans people cannot be adequately evaluated.[26]

    Preliminary research from population surveys with gender measures that include options beyond male and female have identified patterns of inequality align with gender identity more than biological sex.[27]

    Subpopulation data: Though surveys are beginning to capture data on trans people, nonbinary individuals are more often excluded from data collection. Due to decades of research and activism, we know more about the workplace experiences of binary transgender people than nonbinary workers. Epidemiological data shows that only a small minority of trans people in Canada reported a “linear transition” from one binary gender to another.[28] Moreover many gender nonconforming and nonbinary individuals do not “transition” from one binary gender to another with medical assistance.[29]

    Since 2014 the U.S. based Behavioral Risk Factors Surveillance System survey (BRFSS) has enabled participants to identify as either transgender man or woman, gender-nonconforming, or a cisgender man or woman.[30] A 2019 study using data from the BRFSS found gender nonconforming respondents to be twice as likely as cisgender men to self-report poor health after controlling for socioeconomic factors.[31]

    Due to historical discrimination, transgender people are not represented in national data and are elsewhere insufficiently represented in data collection. More robust data on trans and nonbinary people is important to make visible an often overlooked community and to better inform policy.

    Longitudinal data: Studies of the outcomes of trans people at work require data collection across periods of time. However, research studying the outcomes of trans people has been limited due to historical stigma. Most studies examine trans people either during or right after their transitions. However, there is little data about the long-term outcomes of trans people. There is potential for recent large-scale transgender health cohort studies, like the largest transgender study being conducted European Network for the Investigation of Gender Incongruence, which follows 2,600 participants across four clinics in Europe, to share and collaborate using their longitudinal economic and employment data.[32]

    Measuring gender identity and expression

    Though best practices on sex and gender data collection are evolving, current recommendations for trans-inclusive measurement suggest a multi-dimensional sex/gender measure that includes items asked to the subgroup of those who indicate their gender identity differs from their sex assigned at birth.[33] This is important for organizations as they continue to build data collections practices for demographic data on their employees.

    There is continued debate not only how but also whether or not it would be beneficial to build more inclusive gender identity measures.

    Survey research has show there is widespread interest in including trans people in the US census from trans communities.[34] However, there are challenges to data collection as well, including how to conduct research given the small size of the trans population; and, how to measure trans communities given changing understandings and meanings of gender identity and expression.[35] Much of the research on trans and nonbinary people’s experiences come from qualitative interviews due in part to a commitment to a person’s individual experience of gender.[36]

    Activists and scholars have also articulated how some people are wary of disclosing their trans identities given the histories of violence and discrimination against trans people in government policies and practices.[37] Other researchers caution that there are currently no processes to ensure that more inclusive gender measures and related policies would prevent further discrimination against trans employees.[38] This means it is essential to ensure data privacy protocols are in place and clear reasons for gathering the data, such as employment equity, if a company plans to capture sex and gender data from their employees.[39]

    The gender binary impacts everyone, not just transgender people

    Organizations should think beyond the gender binary not only to support their trans and nonbinary employees but because the gender binary sustains workplace gender discrimination. This impacts cisgender people as well. Gender stereotypes and work structures influence work experiences, practices, and policies.[40] Recent research demonstrates that men face backlash for straying from masculine gender norms—like displaying empathy or expressing sadness.[41] Additionally, meritocracy and biological differences between men and women are two ways that organizations justify gender inequalities in promotion practices. Ironically, trans women report losing high powered work positions once they come out as a woman.[42] While trans men report being more respected once they are seen as men than when they were perceived as women at work.[43]

    Transgender people are encouraged to enforce the gender binary at work.

    A recent study on transgender workplace discrimination at Stanford University observed that transgender people often had to compromise their authenticity at work in order to “fit in” and avoid discrimination or “maintain their authenticity” and face discrimination and often firing.[44] Research has demonstrated that unsupportive or hostile colleagues means that transgender employees are pressured to hide their gender identity at work.[45] A 2019 Human Rights Campaign survey found that nearly two thirds of non-LGBTQ employees found it “unprofessional” to discuss gender identity at work.[46]

    Addressing gender identity and expression discrimination at work

    Many employers have begun to acknowledge transgender workers by adopting antidiscrimination best practices and policies.  According the Human Rights Campaign, nearly 85 percent of Fortune 500 companies have policies against gender identity discrimination, up from 3 percent in 2002.[47] Additionally, 62 percent of Fortune 500 companies offer transgender-inclusive benefits, up from 0 percent in 2002. In the United States, there are currently no federal protections prohibiting employment discrimination based upon gender identity and gender expression.[48] In 2017, the Canadian Human Rights Act was amended to include workplace protection against discrimination based upon gender identity and expression. Despite protections research suggests a gap exists between the adoption of antidiscrimination policies, often adopted through processes of diffusion to avoid litigation and maintain a positive public image, and the prevention of discrimination against transgender workers.[49] More research is necessary to understand the best mechanisms to better support trans and nonbinary workers.

    Though there is much that we do not know, research suggests that following tools and practices are a good place to begin:

    • Strengthen gender identity and expression protections and prevention measures within organizations if they do not already exist.
    • Do a “gender audit” of your policies and practices to identify when and how you invoke gender.[50] Ensure you are not unintentionally “gender policing” in policies like dress codes.[51]
    • Assume that there are trans and nonbinary people in your organization even when they are not visible.
    • Understand that the employment barriers that transgender people face are distributed unequally.
    • Partner with trans people and community organizations to challenge stereotypes, provide training, and build trans employment pipelines and practices.
    • Hire openly transgender and nonbinary people even if they force you to challenge your own gender biases. Foster a work environment where people can be authentic. This benefits everyone, not just transgender people.

    This research overview was prepared by Bretton Fosbrook under the supervision of Professor Sarah Kaplan.

    References

    [1] Scheim, A. I., & Bauer, G. R. (2015). Sex and gender diversity among transgender persons in Ontario, Canada: results from a respondent-driven sampling survey. The Journal of Sex Research, 52(1), 1-14.; Flores, A.R., Herman, J. L., Gates, G. J., & Brown, T. N. (2016). “How many adults identify as transgender in the United States?” The Williams Institute.

    [2] Badgett, M. V., Lau, H., Sears, B., & Ho, D. (2007). Bias in the workplace: Consistent evidence of sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination; Dietert, M., & Dentice, D. (2009). Gender identity issues and workplace discrimination: The transgender experience. Journal of Workplace Rights, 14(1).; Connell, C. (2010). Doing, undoing, or redoing gender? Learning from the workplace experiences of transpeople. Gender & Society, 24(1), 31-55.

    [3] Fry, R. (April 11, 2018) “Millennials are the largest generation in the U.S. labor force,” Pew Research Center, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/04/11/millennials-largest-generation-us-labor-force/ Retrieved 18 July 2019; GLAAD. (2017). “Accelerating Acceptance: A Harris Poll survey of Americans’ acceptance of LGBTQ people,” https://www.glaad.org/files/aa/2017_GLAAD_Accelerating_Acceptance.pdf. Retrieved 18 July 2019.

    [4] Parker, K., Graf, N., & Igielnik, R. (2019). Generation Z Looks a Lot Like Millennials on Key Social and Political Issues. Pew Research Center’s Social & Demographic Trends Project.

    [5] Kuper, L. E., Nussbaum, R., & Mustanski, B. (2012). Exploring the diversity of gender and sexual orientation identities in an online sample of transgender individuals. Journal of sex research, 49(2-3), 244-254.; Badgett, M. V., Lau, H., Sears, B., & Ho, D. (2007). Bias in the workplace: Consistent evidence of sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination; Bauer, G. R., Hammond, R., Travers, R., Kaay, M., Hohenadel, K. M., & Boyce, M. (2009). “I don’t think this is theoretical; this is our lives”: how erasure impacts health care for transgender people. Journal of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, 20(5), 348-361.; Connell, C. (2010). Doing, undoing, or redoing gender? Learning from the workplace experiences of transpeople. Gender & Society, 24(1), 31-55.

    [6] Bender-Baird, K., 2011. Transgender employment experiences: Gendered perceptions and the law. SUNY Press.

    [7] Sue, D.W. ed., 2010. Microaggressions and marginality: Manifestation, dynamics, and impact. John Wiley & Sons.

    [8] Nadal, K.L., Whitman, C.N., Davis, L.S., Erazo, T. and Davidoff, K.C., 2016. Microaggressions toward lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and genderqueer people: A review of the literature. The Journal of Sex Research, 53(4-5), pp.488-508.

    [9] Thoroughgood, C. N., Katina B. Sawyer, and Jennica R. Webster. “What lies beneath: how paranoid cognition explains the relations between transgender employees’ perceptions of discrimination at work and their job attitudes and wellbeing.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 103 (2017): 99-112.

    [10] Grant, J.M., Mottet, L., Tanis, J.E., Harrison, J., Herman, J. and Keisling, M., 2011. Injustice at every turn: A report of the National Transgender Discrimination Survey. National Center for Transgender Equality.

    [11] Bauer, G., Nussbaum, N., Travers, R., Munro, L., Pyne, J., Redman, N., Scanlon, K. and Travers, R., 2011. We’ve got work to do: workplace discrimination and employment challenges for trans people in Ontario. Trans PULSE e-Bulletin, 2(1), pp.1-3.

    [12] Bauer, G., Nussbaum, N., Travers, R., Munro, L., Pyne, J., Redman, N., Scanlon, K. and Travers, R., 2011. We’ve got work to do: workplace discrimination and employment challenges for trans people in Ontario. Trans PULSE e-Bulletin, 2(1), pp.1-3.

    [13] James, S.E., Herman, J.L., Rankin, S., Keisling, M., Mottet, L. and Anafi, M.A., 2016. The report of the 2015 US transgender survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Transgender Equality.

    [14] James, S.E., Herman, J.L., Rankin, S., Keisling, M., Mottet, L. and Anafi, M.A., 2016. The report of the 2015 US transgender survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Transgender Equality.

    [15] Grant, J.M., Mottet, L., Tanis, J.E., Harrison, J., Herman, J. and Keisling, M., 2011. Injustice at every turn: A report of the National Transgender Discrimination Survey. National Center for Transgender Equality.

    [16] Rainey, T., Imse, E., & Pomerantz, A. (2015). Qualified and transgender: A report on results of resume testing for employment discrimination based on gender identity. Washington, DC: Office of Human Resources. ohr. dc. gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites /ohr/publication/attachments /Qualifiedan dTransgender_FullReport_1. pdf.

    [17] Public Health Agency of Canada. (2006). Street youth in Canada: Findings from the enhanced surveillance of Canadian street youth, 1999-2003. Ottawa: Government of Canada.

    [18] Abramovich, A. “No safe place to go-LGBTQ youth homelessness in Canada: Reviewing the literature.” Canadian Journal of Family and Youth/Le Journal Canadien de Famille et de la Jeunesse 4, no. 1 (2012): 29-51.

    [19] Westbrook, L. and Schilt, K., 2014. Doing gender, determining gender: Transgender people, gender panics, and the maintenance of the sex/gender/sexuality system. Gender & Society, 28(1), pp.32-57.

    [20] McLemore, Kevin A. “Experiences with misgendering: Identity misclassification of transgender spectrum individuals.” Self and Identity 14, no. 1 (2015): 51-74.

    [21] Davidson, S., 2016. Gender inequality: Nonbinary transgender people in the workplace. Cogent Social Sciences, 2(1), p.1236511.

    [22] Lagos, D. (2018). Looking at population health beyond “male” and “female”: implications of transgender identity and gender nonconformity for population health. Demography, 55(6), 2097-2117.

    [23] Cech, E. A. and Rothwell, W. R. (2019). LGBT Workplace Inequality in the Federal Workforce: Intersectional Processes, Organizational Contexts, and Turnover Considerations. ILR Review, 0019793919843508.

    [24] Greytak, E.A., Gill, A.M., Conron, K.J. and Herman, J.L., 2014. Best Practices for Asking Questions to Identify Transgender and Other Gender Minority Respondents on Population-Based Surveys.

    [25] Brown, T. N. T., Herman, J. L., Park, A. S. (2017). Exploring International Priorities and Best Practices for the Collection of Data about Gender Minorities, Report of Meeting. Los Angeles, CA: The Williams Institute.

    [26] City of Toronto. Report on fostering diversity in the Toronto Public Service. 5 June 2018.

    [27] Lagos, D. (2018). Looking at population health beyond “male” and “female”: implications of transgender identity and gender nonconformity for population health. Demography, 55(6), 2097-2117.

    [28] Scheim, A.I. and Bauer, G.R., 2015. Sex and gender diversity among transgender persons in Ontario, Canada: results from a respondent-driven sampling survey. The Journal of Sex Research, 52(1), pp.1-14.

    [29] Matsuno, E. and Budge, S.L., 2017. Non-binary/genderqueer identities: A critical review of the literature. Current Sexual Health Reports, 9(3), pp.116-120.

    [30] Waite, S., & Denier, N. (2019). A Research note on Canada’s LGBT data landscape: Where we are and what the future holds. Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologie, 56(1), 93-117.

    [31] Lagos, D. (2018). Looking at population health beyond “male” and “female”: implications of transgender identity and gender nonconformity for population health. Demography, 55(6), 2097-2117

    [32] Reardon, S. (2019). The largest study involving transgender people is providing long-sought insights about their health. Nature 568, 446-449.

    [33] Bauer, G.R., Braimoh, J., Scheim, A.I. and Dharma, C., 2017. Transgender-inclusive measures of sex/gender for population surveys: Mixed-methods evaluation and recommendations. PloS one, 12(5), p.e0178043.

    [34] Schilt, K. and Bratter, J., 2015. From multiracial to transgender? Assessing attitudes toward expanding gender options on the US Census. TSQ: Transgender Studies Quarterly, 2(1), pp.77-100.

    [35] Waite, S., & Denier, N. (2019). A Research note on Canada’s LGBT data landscape: Where we are and what the future holds. Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologie, 56(1), 93-117.

    [36] Schilt, K., & Lagos, D. (2017). The development of transgender studies in sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 43, 425-443.

    [37] Spade, D., 2015. Normal life: Administrative violence, critical trans politics, and the limits of law. Duke University Press.

    [38] Munsch, C.L. and Elizabeth Hirsh, C., 2010. Gender variance in the Fortune 500: The inclusion of gender identity and expression in nondiscrimination corporate policy. In Gender and Sexuality in the Workplace (pp. 151-177). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

    [39] Davis, H.F., 2018. Beyond trans: Does gender matter? NYU Press.

    [40] Padavic, I. and Reskin, B.F., 2002. Women and men at work. Pine Forge Press.

    [41] Mayer, D.M. 2018. How men get penalized for straying from masculine norms. Harvard Business Review. 8 October.

    [42] Griggs, C., 1998. S/he: Changing sex and changing clothes. Berg Publishers.

    [43] Schilt, K., 2010. Just one of the guys?: Transgender men and the persistence of gender inequality. University of Chicago Press.

    [44] Fogarty, A, and L. Zheng. 2018. Gender Ambiguity in the Workplace: Transgender and Gender-diverse Discrimination. ABC-CLIO.

    [45] Brewster, M. E., Velez, B. L., Mennicke, A., & Tebbe, E. (2014). Voices from beyond: A thematic content analysis of transgender employees’ workplace experiences. Psychology of sexual orientation and gender diversity, 1(2), 159.

    [46] Fidas, D. and L. Cooper, A. (2019) Workplace Divided: Understanding the Climate for LGBTQ Workers Nationwide. (Human Rights Campaign).

    [47] Human Rights Commission (2019) “Corporate Equality Index 2019.” https://assets2.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/CEI-2019-FullReport.pdf?_ga=2.65847022.1178254233.1564417991-505415734.1555082187. Retrieved 21 July 2019.

    [48] United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, “What You Should Know About EEOC and the Enforcement Protections for LGBT Workers.”

    [49] Weiss, J. T. 2004. The cutting edge of employment diversity: Transgender human resources policies in U.S. employers (Doctoral dissertation). Boston, MA: Northeastern University.

    [50] Fogg Davis, H. (2018) https://heathfoggdavis.com/building-gender-inclusive-organizations-the-workbook/

    [51] Barry, B. (2017). What happens when men don’t conform to masculine clothing norms at work? Harvard Business Review, 31 August.

    [/fusion_text][fusion_separator style_type=”none” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” sep_color=”” top_margin=”20″ bottom_margin=”20″ border_size=”” icon=”” icon_circle=”” icon_circle_color=”” width=”” alignment=”center” /][fusion_button link=”https://www.gendereconomy.org/category/research-overviews/” text_transform=”” title=”” target=”_blank” link_attributes=”” alignment=”” modal=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” color=”custom” button_gradient_top_color=”#62bd19″ button_gradient_bottom_color=”#62bd19″ button_gradient_top_color_hover=”#00c2e2″ button_gradient_bottom_color_hover=”#00c2e2″ accent_color=”” accent_hover_color=”” type=”” bevel_color=”” size=”” stretch=”yes” icon=”” icon_position=”left” icon_divider=”no” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=””]See more research overviews[/fusion_button][fusion_separator style_type=”none” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” sep_color=”” top_margin=”20″ bottom_margin=”20″ border_size=”” icon=”” icon_circle=”” icon_circle_color=”” width=”” alignment=”center” /][fusion_recent_posts layout=”default” picture_size=”fixed” hover_type=”none” columns=”3″ number_posts=”3″ offset=”0″ pull_by=”category” cat_slug=”research-overviews” exclude_cats=”” tag_slug=”” exclude_tags=”” thumbnail=”yes” title=”yes” meta=”no” meta_author=”no” meta_categories=”no” meta_date=”yes” meta_comments=”yes” meta_tags=”no” content_alignment=”” excerpt=”no” excerpt_length=”35″ strip_html=”yes” scrolling=”no” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” /][/fusion_builder_column][fusion_builder_column type=”1_4″ layout=”1_4″ spacing=”” center_content=”no” hover_type=”none” link=”” min_height=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”left top” background_repeat=”no-repeat” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” last=”true” border_sizes_top=”0″ border_sizes_bottom=”0″ border_sizes_left=”0″ border_sizes_right=”0″ first=”false”][fusion_title hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”briefsummary” id=”” content_align=”left” size=”3″ font_size=”” line_height=”” letter_spacing=”” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” margin_top_mobile=”” margin_bottom_mobile=”” text_color=”” style_type=”none” sep_color=”” margin_top_small=”” margin_bottom_small=””]

    Research overview prepared by

    Bretton Fosbrook, Postdoctoral Fellow

    Published

    October 2019

    [/fusion_title][fusion_widget_area name=”avada-custom-sidebar-researchbriefsidebar” title_size=”” title_color=”” background_color=”” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” /][/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]

  • Intersectionality and the implications for workplace gender equity

    Intersectionality and the implications for workplace gender equity

    [fusion_builder_container admin_label=”” hundred_percent=”no” equal_height_columns=”no” menu_anchor=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”center center” background_repeat=”no-repeat” fade=”no” background_parallax=”none” enable_mobile=”no” parallax_speed=”0.3″ video_mp4=”” video_webm=”” video_ogv=”” video_url=”” video_aspect_ratio=”16:9″ video_loop=”yes” video_mute=”yes” video_preview_image=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” margin_top=”20″ margin_bottom=”” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” type=”legacy”][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=”3_4″ layout=”3_4″ spacing=”” center_content=”no” hover_type=”none” link=”” min_height=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”left top” background_repeat=”no-repeat” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” last=”false” border_sizes_top=”0″ border_sizes_bottom=”0″ border_sizes_left=”0″ border_sizes_right=”0″ first=”true” spacing_right=””][fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_spacing=”” rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=””]

    Download this research brief (in English/en Français).
    Download the infographic (in English/en Français).

    Overview

    Intersectionality is a way of understanding how individuals are differently impacted by inequality on the basis of factors such as race, ethnicity, class, gender, age, citizenship, ability, and sexual orientation.[1] Intersectional inequality affects women and visible minorities differently, depending on their social, cultural, and occupational contexts.[2] Evidence suggests that many organizational initiatives promoting diversity and inclusion tend to benefit white women in particular and not other under-represented groups.[3] 

    Inequality affects individuals differently on the basis of factors such as race, age, or gender.

    Consequences of intersectional inequality in the workforce

    We can see unequal workplace outcomes on the basis of intersectionality in the gendered and racialized wage gap in Canada. Visible minority women, especially first-generation immigrants, earn on average $5,000 less than non-visible minority women, and $7,000 less than visible minority men.[4] Compared to any other group, immigrant women—and those from racialized backgrounds—are more likely to be unemployed or underemployed in jobs that do not reflect their education or experience.[5] And spending long periods of time in precarious work can have lasting negative effects on the employment outcomes of racialized immigrant women.[6]

    Visible minority women are more frequently employed in precarious jobs characterized by insecurity, low wages, low protection, and limited benefits.[7] Poverty rates for visible minority families are three times higher than for non-visible minority families, and families who identify as Arab, West Asian, and Korean have poverty rates above 30%.[8]

     Research has documented other types of intersectional inequalities in the workplace. For example, white men often experience a “glass escalator” when working in female-dominated occupations such as nursing and teaching, that enables their promotion through the ranks more quickly.[9] However the same benefits do not extend to visible minority men; Black male nurses are perceived as less skilled than female nurses.[10]

    Solutions to overcoming intersectional inequalities at work

    Some of the traditional methods for addressing organization diversity are not sufficient for addressing intersectional inequalities. For example, bias training in the workplace can create backlash if trainees resent being selected for training and perceive it as punishment for prior behaviour.[11]   

    Management can consider some of the following recommendations as starting points:

    • Be specific in language use: “Diversity” has become a catchall phrase that can be misappropriated, to mean, for example, hiring in order to achieve “diversity of thought,” which may preclude the hiring of women and visible minorities. Management can focus explicitly on addressing gender and racial/ethnic discrimination.[12]
    • Promote sponsorship over mentorship: In sponsorship relationships, mentors typically go beyond providing advice and use their influence to advocate to executives on behalf of their mentee. But high-potential women are over-mentored and under-sponsored relative to their male peers, and subsequently, do not advance as quickly up the ranks. Management can ensure that white male sponsors take on female and visible minority sponsees.[13]
    • Get buy-in from management: Diversity initiatives are more effective when they engage managers in solving problems of underrepresentation and increase managers’ on-the-job contact with female and visible minority workers.[14] Such initiatives should include fostering acceptance and understanding of accents, and of religious differences, two common but overlooked forms of discrimination.[15]

    • Track data on employee demographics: Many firms do not collect data on the diversity of their employees.[16]  This oversight makes it harder to identify underrepresentation along the intersections of race, ethnicity, gender, ability, and sexuality. By tracking demographic data, firms can better determine whether and how they need to alter practices to mitigate discriminatory behaviour.
    • Move beyond your usual networks for recruitment and hiring: Management can post job listings on job sites geared towards helping underrepresented groups find employment, such as The Aboriginal Job Board.[17]  

    References

    [1] Crenshaw, K. (1990). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stan. L. Rev., 43, 1241.

    Collins, P. H. (2002). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. Routledge.

    [2] Aline Tugend, The Effect of Intersectionality in the Workplace, New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/30/us/the-effect-of-intersectionality-in-the-workplace.html

    [3] Apfelbaum, E. P., Stephens, N. M., & Reagans, R. E. (2016). Beyond one-size-fits-all: Tailoring diversity approaches to the representation of social groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(4), 547.

    [4] Statistics Canada, Visible Minority Women: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/89-503-x/2010001/article/11527-eng.htm

    Hou, F., & Coulombe, S. (2010). Earnings gaps for Canadian-born visible minorities in the public and private sectors. Canadian Public Policy, 36(1), 29-43.

    [5] Cranford, C. J., Vosko, L. F., & Zukewich, N. (2003). Precarious employment in the Canadian labour market: A statistical portrait. Just labour.

    Fuller, S., & Vosko, L. F. (2008). Temporary employment and social inequality in Canada: Exploring intersections of gender, race and immigration status. Social indicators research, 88(1), 31-50.

    Premji, S., & Shakya, Y. (2017). Pathways between under/unemployment and health among racialized immigrant women in Toronto. Ethnicity & health, 22(1), 17-35.

    [6] Fudge, J., and Strauss, K. (Eds.). (2013). Temporary work, agencies and unfree labour: Insecurity in the new world of work. Routledge

    [7] Creese, G., and B. Wiebe. 2012. ‘Survival Employment’: Gender and Deskilling among African Immigrants in Canada.” International Migration 50 (5): 56 76. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2435.2009. 00531.x.

    Galarneau, D., and R. Morissette. 2009. “Immigrants’ Education and Required Job Skills.” Perspectives on Labour and Income 9 (12): 5–18.

    Picot, G., & Sweetman, A. (2012). Making it in Canada: Immigration outcomes and policies. IRPP study, (29), 1.

    Noack, A. M., and L. F. Vosko. 2011. “Precarious Jobs in Ontario. Mapping Dimensions of Labour Market Insecurity by Workers’ Social Location and Context.” Toronto, Commissioned report by Law Commission of Ontario.

    [8] Block, S., & Galabuzi, G. E. (2011). Canada’s colour coded labour market. Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, 1-20.

    [9] Williams, C. L. (1992). The glass escalator: Hidden advantages for men in the “female” professions. Social problems, 39(3), 253-267.

    [10] Wingfield, A. H. (2009). Racializing the glass escalator: Reconsidering men’s experiences with women’s work. Gender & Society, 23(1), 5-26. Wingfield, A. H. (2009). Racializing the glass escalator: Reconsidering men’s experiences with women’s work. Gender & Society, 23(1), 5-26. 7(6), 999-1022.

    [11] Kalev, A., Kelly, E., & Dobbin, F. (2006). Best Practices or Best Guesses? Assessing the Efficacy of Corporate Affirmative Action and Diversity Policies. American Sociological Review, 71(4), 589-617.

    Alyson Colón, Does Diversity Training Work?, Institute for Gender and the Economy: https://www.gendereconomy.org/does-diversity-training-work/

    Sanchez, J., & Medkik, N. (2004). The Effects of Diversity Awareness Training on Differential Treatment. Group & Organization Management, 29(4), 517–536

    [12] Adia Harvey Wingfield, How Organizations are Failing Black Workers and How to do Better, Harvard Business Review: https://hbr.org/2019/01/how-organizations-are-failing-black-workers-and-how-to-do-better

    [13] Ibid

    Ibarra, Herminia, Nancy M. Carter and Christine Silva (2010) https://hbr.org/2010/09/why-men-still-get-more-promotions-than-women

    [14] Dobbin, F., & Kalev, A. (2016). Why diversity programs fail. Harvard Business Review, 94(7), 14.

    [15] Ameeriar, L. (2017). Downwardly Global: Women, Work, and Citizenship in the Pakistani Diaspora. Duke University Press.

    Boyd, Monica and Xingshan Cao. 2009. Immigrant Language Proficiency, Earnings, and Language Policies. Canadian Studies in Population 36(1-2):63-86.

    Derwing, Tracey M. and Erin Waugh. 2012. Language Skills and the Social Integration of Canada’s Adult Immigrants. IRPP Study No. 31.

    Dovidio JF, Kawakami K, Gaertner S. 2002. Implicit and explicit prejudice in interracial interaction. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 82(1): 62– 68

    MacDougall, A. (2007). Hearing audible minorities: Accent, discrimination, and the integration of immigrants into the Canadian labour market. Vol. 47 , No.04 pp. 20-39

    [16] Matthew Braga, Canadian tech companies say they value diversity — but what are they doing about it?, cbc.ca: https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/canada-tech-companies-diversity-reports-2017-1.4194556

    [17] https://aboriginaljobboard.ca/

    [/fusion_text][fusion_separator style_type=”none” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” sep_color=”” top_margin=”20″ bottom_margin=”20″ border_size=”” icon=”” icon_circle=”” icon_circle_color=”” width=”” alignment=”center” /][fusion_button link=”https://www.gendereconomy.org/research-briefs/” text_transform=”” title=”” target=”_blank” link_attributes=”” alignment=”” modal=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” color=”custom” button_gradient_top_color=”#62bd19″ button_gradient_bottom_color=”#62bd19″ button_gradient_top_color_hover=”#00c2e2″ button_gradient_bottom_color_hover=”#00c2e2″ accent_color=”” accent_hover_color=”” type=”” bevel_color=”” size=”” stretch=”yes” icon=”” icon_position=”left” icon_divider=”no” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=””]See more research briefs[/fusion_button][fusion_separator style_type=”none” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” sep_color=”” top_margin=”20″ bottom_margin=”20″ border_size=”” icon=”” icon_circle=”” icon_circle_color=”” width=”” alignment=”center” /][fusion_recent_posts layout=”default” hover_type=”none” columns=”3″ number_posts=”3″ offset=”0″ pull_by=”category” cat_slug=”research-briefs” exclude_cats=”” tag_slug=”” exclude_tags=”” thumbnail=”yes” title=”yes” meta=”no” meta_author=”no” meta_categories=”no” meta_date=”yes” meta_comments=”yes” meta_tags=”no” content_alignment=”” excerpt=”no” excerpt_length=”35″ strip_html=”yes” scrolling=”no” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” /][/fusion_builder_column][fusion_builder_column type=”1_4″ layout=”1_4″ spacing=”” center_content=”no” hover_type=”none” link=”” min_height=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”left top” background_repeat=”no-repeat” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” last=”true” border_sizes_top=”0″ border_sizes_bottom=”0″ border_sizes_left=”0″ border_sizes_right=”0″ first=”false”][fusion_title hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”briefsummary” id=”” content_align=”left” size=”3″ font_size=”” line_height=”” letter_spacing=”” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” margin_top_mobile=”” margin_bottom_mobile=”” text_color=”” style_type=”none” sep_color=”” margin_top_small=”” margin_bottom_small=””]

    Published

    April 23, 2019

    This research brief was funded by the Government of Canada’s Labour Program for the Women in the Workplace Symposium that took place at Rotman on May 09/10, 2019.

    The opinions and interpretations in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Government of Canada.

    To see more from this event, check out #Womenintheworkplace.

    Government of Canada logo

    [/fusion_title][fusion_widget_area name=”avada-custom-sidebar-researchbriefsidebar” title_size=”” title_color=”” background_color=”” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” /][/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]

  • Care responsibilities and work-life balance

    Care responsibilities and work-life balance

    [fusion_builder_container admin_label=”” hundred_percent=”no” equal_height_columns=”no” menu_anchor=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”center center” background_repeat=”no-repeat” fade=”no” background_parallax=”none” enable_mobile=”no” parallax_speed=”0.3″ video_mp4=”” video_webm=”” video_ogv=”” video_url=”” video_aspect_ratio=”16:9″ video_loop=”yes” video_mute=”yes” video_preview_image=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” margin_top=”20″ margin_bottom=”” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” type=”legacy”][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=”3_4″ layout=”3_4″ spacing=”” center_content=”no” hover_type=”none” link=”” min_height=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”left top” background_repeat=”no-repeat” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” last=”false” border_sizes_top=”0″ border_sizes_bottom=”0″ border_sizes_left=”0″ border_sizes_right=”0″ first=”true” spacing_right=””][fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_spacing=”” rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=””]

    Download this research brief (in English/en Français).
    Download the infographic (in English/en Français).

    Overview

    Since 1976, the percentage of dual-earner families has nearly doubled from 36 to 69%. This increase is driven primarily by women’s greater participation in the paid labour market. In 2014, 58% of women between the ages of 25 and 54 were employed full-time.[1] Single mothers accounted for 81% of lone-parent families.[2]

    The growing participation rates of women in the workforce have been accompanied by increasing demand for childcare services. Daycare provision helps mothers of young children stay in the paid labour market, and it facilitates peer socialization and school readiness.[3] In 2011, almost half of parents (46%) in Canada reported using some type of childcare for their children aged 14 years and younger. Of those parents paying for childcare, 31% use home daycares, 33% opt for licensed daycare centres, and 28% enlist private care.[4]

    46% of Canadian parents reported using some type of childcare for their children aged 14 years and younger.

    Sources of work-family conflict

    At the same time that their share of paid work is increasing, women spend twice as much time performing unpaid childcare as men (50.1 vs. 24.4 hours per week on average), and they spend more time on domestic work than men (13.8 vs. 8.3 hours per week).[5] Canadian women also spend less time on leisure activities, and they are more likely than men to be simultaneously engaged in unpaid work.[6]  The “second shift” performed by working women is exacerbated by unrealistic cultural norms of intensive mothering.[7] Women also make up a larger share of the “sandwich” generation, cohorts of adults who are responsible for caring for their ageing parents in addition to bringing up their own children. Nearly 6 in 10  (57%) of eldercare providers are women.[8]

    Expectations that workers are available 24/7 and job design that inhibits remote work also make it more challenging to accommodate caregiving responsibilities. The inflexibility of work hours and lack of schedule control in high-status occupations like law contributes to women’s stratification within such fields and their overall underrepresentation in such fields.[9] 

    Availability of licensed daycare space varies widely. Approximately 44% of all non-school-aged children in Canada live in communities where demand outpaces the supply of childcare. While large cities in Quebec and Prince Edward Island have the most availability, cities such as Kitchener and Brampton, ON and Saskatoon, SK have the lowest coverage rates.[10] Since 2000, Quebec has offered subsidized childcare for children ages 0-4, where the average cost of childcare is $7 per day. Since the implementation of universal childcare, estimates of the increase in mothers working full-time outside the home ranges from 8 to 12%.[11] The median cost of full-time childcare in Quebec is four times lower than the Atlantic provinces, which have a median cost of $541 per month. Childcare is most expensive in Ontario where the median monthly cost is $677.[12]

    Solutions for improving work-life balance and making care work more equitable at work

    There are several measures employers can take to improve the work-life balance of employees and help make the division of unpaid work more equitable:

    • Promote fathers’ involvement: Cultural norms around the male provider role make men feel uncomfortable taking extended parental leave.[13] Employers need to encourage this more strongly. Long parental leaves have been shown to compromise women’s career advancement.[14] Longer parental leave for men can help reduce parental leave for women, thus getting them back into the workforce more quickly. Small and medium-sized businesses might find parental leaves more disruptive than large firms, but careful and creative planning for leaves can pay off in terms of intangible benefits such as increased motivation, loyalty and retention.[15]
    • Provide flexibility: Flexible work arrangements, such as telework and flex-time, are one mechanism that make it easier for working parents to balance the responsibilities of paid and unpaid labour. But they have to be implemented correctly and there has to be buy-in from management. Given that use of flexible work arrangements increase when managers demonstrate support—and that most employees (86%) and managers (74%) do not receive training on flexible work arrangements —managerial training could be a key intervention.[16][17] For example, PepsiCo executive Robbert Rietbroek suggests that senior management “leave loudly,” thereby demonstrating to junior staff that it’s acceptable to work flexible hours in order to accommodate personal needs.[18]
    • Offer subsidized or on-site daycare: Larger firms can introduce on-site daycare. On-site childcare improves worker morale and enables parents to spend more time with their children.[19] It also helps with employee retention.[20] Smaller firms can consider subsidizing childcare or offering reimbursement for “emergency childcare” in order to improve the retention of employees with caregiving responsibilities.
    • Change job designs: There are ways of designing employment that make it easier to achieve work-life balance. Some organizations have considered introducing a 4-day workweek. This would enable female employees to take the extra time they need with their dependents while staying on the same footing as their work colleagues. And partners of men working a 4-day work week would be provided with the option of ramping up their own careers.[21]
    • Encourage change in cultural norms: In addition to workplace policy implementation, recent research points to the need to share the cognitive workload that accompanies unpaid care work. Mothers, in particular, are more likely to perform “invisible labour,” such as remembering birthdays, planning meals, scheduling extracurricular activities and scheduling doctor’s visits, which prevents them from focusing on other pursuits.[22] More attention needs to be paid to the gendered and unequal division of cognitive work that occurs in most heterosexual households.

    References

    [1] 2011 Statistics Canada Childcare in Canada report: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/89-652-x/89-652-x2014005-eng.htm

    [2] Statistics Canada, Lone parent families: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/75-006-x/2015001/article/14202/parent-eng.htm

    [3] Nores, M., & Barnett, W. S. (2010). Benefits of early childhood interventions across the world: (Under) Investing in the very young. Economics of Education Review, 29(2), 271–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2009.09.001

    [4] 2011 Statistics Canada Childcare in Canada report: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/89-652-x/89-652-x2014005-eng.htm

    [5] Statistics Canada, Families, Living Arrangements and Unpaid Work: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/89-503-x/2010001/article/11546-eng.htm#a12

    [6] Moyser, M. and Burlock, A., 2018. Time use: Total work burden, unpaid work, and leisure. Women in Canada: A Gender-based Statistical Report. Statistics Canada Catalogue, no. 89-503-X.

    [7] Collins, C. (2019). Making Motherhood Work: How Women Manage Careers and Caregiving. Princeton University Press.

    de Laat, K., & Baumann, S. (2016). Caring consumption as marketing schema: Representations of motherhood in an era of hyperconsumption. Journal of Gender Studies, 25(2), 183-199.

    Hays, S. (1998). The cultural contradictions of motherhood. Yale University Press.

    Hochschild, A., & Machung, A. (2012). The second shift: Working families and the revolution at home. Penguin

    [8] Cranswick, K., & Dosman, D. (2008). Eldercare: What we know today. Canadian social trends, 86(1), 49-57.

    [9] Kay, F., & Gorman, E. (2008). Women in the legal profession. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 4, 299-332.

    [10] The Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives: https://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/reports/child-care-deserts-canada

    [11] Fortin, P., Godbout, L., & St-Cerny, S. (2012). Impact of Quebec’s universal low fee childcare program on female labour force participation, domestic income, and government budgets. The Research Chair in Taxation and Public Finance at the University of Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada.

    [12] 2011 Statistics Canada Childcare in Canada report: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/89-652-x/89-652-x2014005-eng.htm

    [13] Coltrane, S., Miller, E. C., DeHaan, T., & Stewart, L. 2013. “Fathers and the flexibility stigma.” Journal of Social Issues, 69(2), 279-302.

    Rudman, L. A., & Mescher, K. 2013. “Penalizing men who request a family leave: Is flexibility stigma a femininity stigma?” Journal of Social Issues, 69(2), 322-340.

    Vandello, J. A., Hettinger, V. E., Bosson, J. K., & Siddiqi, J. (2013). When Equal Isn’t Really Equal: The Masculine Dilemma of Seeking Work Flexibility. Journal of Social Issues, 69(2), 303–321. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12016

    [14] Hideg, I., Krstic, A., Trau, R. N., & Zarina, T. (2018). The unintended consequences of maternity leaves: How agency interventions mitigate the negative effects of longer legislated maternity leaves. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(10), 1155.

    Olivetti, C., & Petrongolo, B. (2017). The economic consequences of family policies: lessons from a century of legislation in high-income countries. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(1), 205-30.

    [15] Karen Firestone, How Should a Small Business Handle Parental Leave, Harvard Business Review: https://hbr.org/2013/05/how-should-a-small-business-ha

    [16] Conference Board of Canada 2017 study on flexible work arrangements: https://www.conferenceboard.ca/temp/dcfed0e6-3c32-4ad5-906e 66f09c02f5f1/9614_Flexible%20Work%20Agreements_RPT.pdf

    [17] Munsch, C. L., Ridgeway, C. L., & Williams, J. C. (2014). Pluralistic Ignorance and the Flexibility Bias: Understanding and Mitigating Flextime and Flexplace Bias at Work. Work and Occupations, 41(1), 40–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888413515894

    [18] Leaving loudly: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-work-life-balance-20170922-story.html

    [19] L. Gullekson, N., Griffeth, R., B. Vancouver, J., T. Kovner, C., & Cohen, D. (2014). Vouching for childcare assistance with two quasi-experimental studies. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29(8), 994-1008.

    [20] Connelly, R., Degraff, D. S., & Willis, R. (2002). If you build it, they will come: parental use of on-site child care centers. Population Research and Policy Review, 21(3), 241-273.

    [21] The four-day workweek: https://qz.com/work/1530023/wellcome-trusts-four-day-week-is-great-for-gender-equality/

    [22] Hartley, G. (2018). Fed Up: Emotional Labor, Women, and the Way Forward. Harper Collins.

    [/fusion_text][fusion_separator style_type=”none” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” sep_color=”” top_margin=”20″ bottom_margin=”20″ border_size=”” icon=”” icon_circle=”” icon_circle_color=”” width=”” alignment=”center” /][fusion_button link=”https://www.gendereconomy.org/research-briefs/” text_transform=”” title=”” target=”_blank” link_attributes=”” alignment=”” modal=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” color=”custom” button_gradient_top_color=”#62bd19″ button_gradient_bottom_color=”#62bd19″ button_gradient_top_color_hover=”#00c2e2″ button_gradient_bottom_color_hover=”#00c2e2″ accent_color=”” accent_hover_color=”” type=”” bevel_color=”” border_width=”” size=”” stretch=”yes” icon=”” icon_position=”left” icon_divider=”no” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” border_radius=””]See more research briefs[/fusion_button][fusion_separator style_type=”none” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” sep_color=”” top_margin=”20″ bottom_margin=”20″ border_size=”” icon=”” icon_circle=”” icon_circle_color=”” width=”” alignment=”center” /][fusion_recent_posts layout=”default” hover_type=”none” columns=”3″ number_posts=”3″ offset=”0″ pull_by=”category” cat_slug=”research-briefs” exclude_cats=”” tag_slug=”” exclude_tags=”” thumbnail=”yes” title=”yes” meta=”no” meta_author=”no” meta_categories=”no” meta_date=”yes” meta_comments=”yes” meta_tags=”no” content_alignment=”” excerpt=”no” excerpt_length=”35″ strip_html=”yes” scrolling=”no” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” /][/fusion_builder_column][fusion_builder_column type=”1_4″ layout=”1_4″ spacing=”” center_content=”no” hover_type=”none” link=”” min_height=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”left top” background_repeat=”no-repeat” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” last=”true” border_sizes_top=”0″ border_sizes_bottom=”0″ border_sizes_left=”0″ border_sizes_right=”0″ first=”false”][fusion_title hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”briefsummary” id=”” content_align=”left” size=”3″ font_size=”” line_height=”” letter_spacing=”” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” margin_top_mobile=”” margin_bottom_mobile=”” text_color=”” style_type=”none” sep_color=”” margin_top_small=”” margin_bottom_small=””]

    Published

    April 23, 2019

    This research brief was funded by the Government of Canada’s Labour Program for the Women in the Workplace Symposium that took place at Rotman on May 09/10, 2019.

    The opinions and interpretations in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Government of Canada.

    To see more from this event, check out #Womenintheworkplace.

    Government of Canada logo

    [/fusion_title][fusion_widget_area name=”avada-custom-sidebar-researchbriefsidebar” title_size=”” title_color=”” background_color=”” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” /][/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]

  • Women and leadership

    Women and leadership

    [fusion_builder_container admin_label=”” hundred_percent=”no” equal_height_columns=”no” menu_anchor=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”center center” background_repeat=”no-repeat” fade=”no” background_parallax=”none” enable_mobile=”no” parallax_speed=”0.3″ video_mp4=”” video_webm=”” video_ogv=”” video_url=”” video_aspect_ratio=”16:9″ video_loop=”yes” video_mute=”yes” video_preview_image=”” border_size=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” margin_top=”20″ margin_bottom=”” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=””][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=”3_4″ layout=”3_4″ spacing=”” center_content=”no” hover_type=”none” link=”” min_height=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”left top” background_repeat=”no-repeat” border_size=”0″ border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” last=”no”][fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_spacing=”” rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=””]

    Download this research brief (in English/en Français).
    Download the infographic (in English/en Français).

    Overview

    Canada lags behind other developed countries with regard to female representation on corporate boards and in management leadership. Since 2015, firms regulated by the Ontario Securities Commission have been required to disclose annually the number of women on their board of directors and in executive officer positions. Firms that have not adopted ways to promote the representation of women are required to explain their reasons for not doing so.

    Despite the existence of ‘comply or explain’ legislation, there has been slow progress for board representation, and even slower progress for women in executive leadership positions.[1] In 2018, 40.1% of TSX-listed firms reported having no female executive officers, 29.1% reported having one female executive officer, and 30.8% reported having more than one female executive officer. Women filled only 29% of vacated board seats and held 15% of board seats overall. In Canada, only 4% of firms have a female CEO.[2]

    In 2018, women held just 15% of board seats and only 4% of firms had a female CEO in Canada.

    Reasons for slow progress

    Many attribute the lack of female leaders to a “leaky pipeline,” where women opt out of challenging career paths. But research suggests that opting out is not the problem. Instead, workplace cultures and practices that fail to accommodate the realities of care work—for which working mothers remain overwhelmingly responsible—push women out of the workforce or out of advancement to leadership roles.[3]

    Women are also disadvantaged by the stereotype of leadership as a masculine trait.[4] Leadership bias against women has been found in a variety of fields, including entrepreneurship and engineering.[5] Because women do not fit the stereotype of a leader, they are often less respected.[6] For example, when women are promoted to leadership positions in male-dominated and technical occupational fields, they may face backlash. Because managerial positions involve less technical work, an increasing number of women in such positions may validate pervasive stereotypes about women being less technically competent.[7]

    How to fix the problem of representation

    • “Gender blind” vs. “gender aware” approaches to hiring and recruitment: While a gender-blind approach to hiring, such as redacting applicants’ names and other identifying information may help women get interviews, this approach cannot remove biases that are already part of workplace cultures.[8] Research finds that even when firms present pro-diversity values and encourage applications from underrepresented groups, they still exhibit bias in hiring practices.[9] Management can implement diverse team-based hiring so that a single hiring manager is not responsible for hiring decisions. Doing so will help to ensure that hiring is based on agreed upon job criteria and not merely the outcome of one individual’s “gut instinct” about “fit,” which may reflect unconscious biases.[10]
    • Change job descriptions for leadership roles: Job descriptions can be rewritten to reduce biased language and eliminate associations with gender stereotypes. For example, changing “assertiveness,” a term associated with men, to “confidence.”
    • Implement quotas or hard targets: Research shows that the belief that quotas compromise meritocracy is misguided. The implementation of quotas to increase female leadership is not a trade-off on quality.[11] Instead, board governance quality may improve. Specifically, increasing the number of women on corporate boards to three or more enhances the likelihood that women’s ideas are heard, and that boardroom dynamics change.[12]   

    • Sponsorship and mentorship: Whereas workplace mentors provide advice, workplace sponsors advocate on behalf of their sponsees and champion their advancement. Because sponsorship relies on the efforts of senior-level executives, such relationships are less common but more valuable than mentorship relationships.  Women with sponsors are almost twice as likely to believe that being promoted to executive positions is attainable.[13] Promoting sponsorship in addition to mentorship is thus a key intervention for increasing female leadership.
    • Diversity training: Diversity training can help when implemented with buy-in from management, and alongside other efforts to reduce gender inequality.  A key complement to diversity training is clear accountability for what change looks like. Efforts need to be widespread and long-term, otherwise, the mere presence and availability of diversity training can create the illusion that an organization is fair, and management may cease efforts towards truly inclusionary and substantive change.[15]   
    • Educate to dismantle gender stereotypes: Socialization into stereotypical gender roles begins in childhood, as do biased perceptions of women as followers rather than leaders.[16] Solutions aimed at addressing leaky pipelines must involve training for educators of every age group, from preschool to university to onsite job learning.[17]

    References

    [1] Catalyst, Gender Diversity on Boards in Canada: Recommendations for Accelerating Progress, commissioned by the Government of Ontario (2016). https://www.catalyst.org/research/gender-diversity-on-boards-in-canada-recommendations-for-accelerating-progress/#footnote4_g2amjjm

    [2] Canadian Securities Administrators, “Report on Fourth Staff Review of Disclosure regarding Women on Boards and in Executive Officer Positions”: https://www.osc.gov.on.ca/en/SecuritiesLaw_sn_20180927_58-310_staff-review-women-on-boards.html

    Andrew MacDougall and John Valley of Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt, “2018 Diversity Disclosure Practices”: https://www.osler.com/osler/media/Osler/reports/corporate-governance/2018-Diversity-Disclosure-Practices-Women-in-leadership-roles-at-TSX-listed-companies.pdf

    [3] Stone, P. (2008). Opting out?: Why women really quit careers and head home. Univ of California Press.

    Collins, C. (2019). Making Motherhood Work: How Women Manage Careers and Caregiving. Princeton University Press.

    [4] McClean, E. J., Martin, S. R., Emich, K. J., & Woodruff, C. T. (2018). The social consequences of voice: An examination of voice type and gender on status and subsequent leader emergence. Academy of Management Journal, 61(5), 1869-1891.

    Eagly, A.H. & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders. Harvard Business Press.

    [5] Yang, T., & Aldrich, H. E. (2014). Who’s the boss? Explaining gender inequality in entrepreneurial teams. American Sociological Review, 79(2), 303-327.

    Cardador, M. T. (2017). Promoted Up But Also Out? The Unintended Consequences of Increasing Women’s Representation in Managerial Roles in Engineering. Organization Science, 28(4), 597-617.

    [6] Desai, S. D., Chugh, D., & Brief, A. P. (2014). The implications of marriage structure for men’s workplace attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors toward women. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59(2), 330-365.

    [7] Cardador, M. T. (2017). Promoted Up But Also Out? The Unintended Consequences of Increasing Women’s Representation in Managerial Roles in Engineering. Organization Science, 28(4), 597-617.

    [8] Goldin, Claudia, and Cecilia Rouse. 2000. “Orchestrating Impartiality: The Impact of “Blind” Auditions on Female Musicians.” American Economic Review, 90 (4): 715-741.

    [9] Kang, S. K., DeCelles, K. A., Tilcsik, A., & Jun, S. (2016). Whitened resumes: Race and self-presentation in the labor market. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61(3), 469-502.

    [10] Rivera, L. A. (2012). Hiring as cultural matching: The case of elite professional service firms. American sociological review, 77(6), 999-1022.

    [11] Besley, T., Folke, O., Persson, T., & Rickne, J. (2017). Gender quotas and the crisis of the mediocre man: Theory and evidence from Sweden. American economic review, 107(8), 2204-42.

    Kim, D., & Starks, L. T. (2016). Gender diversity on corporate boards: Do women contribute unique skills?. American Economic Review, 106(5), 267-7.

    [12] Kramer, V.W., Konrad, A.M., Erkut, S. and Hooper, M.J., 2006. Critical mass on corporate boards: Why three or more women enhance governance. Wellesley, MA: Wellesley Centers for Women.

    Kim, D., & Starks, L. T. (2016). Gender diversity on corporate boards: Do women contribute unique skills?. American Economic Review, 106(5), 267-7

    [13] Naomi Titleman Colla, Sponsorship is an important key to unlocking women’s career potential, The Globe and Mail: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/careers/management/sponsorship-is-an-important-key-to-unlocking-womens-career-potential/article38204533/

    Women of Influence, “What’s holding women back: A look at female ambition in Canada”: https://www.womenofinfluence.ca/2016/01/11/whats-holding-women-back-a-look-at-female-ambition-in-canada/#.XJkhnBNKiV4

    [14] Dobbin, F., & Kalev, A. (2016). Why diversity programs fail. Harvard Business Review, 94(7), 14.

    [15] Alyson Colón, Does diversity training work?, Institute for Gender and the Economy: https://www.gendereconomy.org/does-diversity-training-work/

    [16] Reskin, B. F., & Hartmann, H. I. (Eds.). (1986). Women’s work, men’s work: Sex segregation on the job. National Academies Press.

    [17] Correll, S. J. (2001). Gender and the career choice process: The role of biased self-assessments. American journal of Sociology, 106(6), 1691-1730.

    [/fusion_text][fusion_separator style_type=”none” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” sep_color=”” top_margin=”20″ bottom_margin=”20″ border_size=”” icon=”” icon_circle=”” icon_circle_color=”” width=”” alignment=”center” /][fusion_button link=”https://www.gendereconomy.org/research-briefs/” text_transform=”” title=”” target=”_blank” link_attributes=”” alignment=”” modal=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” color=”custom” button_gradient_top_color=”#62bd19″ button_gradient_bottom_color=”#62bd19″ button_gradient_top_color_hover=”#00c2e2″ button_gradient_bottom_color_hover=”#00c2e2″ accent_color=”” accent_hover_color=”” type=”” bevel_color=”” border_width=”” size=”” stretch=”yes” shape=”” icon=”” icon_position=”left” icon_divider=”no” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=””]See more research briefs[/fusion_button][fusion_separator style_type=”none” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” sep_color=”” top_margin=”20″ bottom_margin=”20″ border_size=”” icon=”” icon_circle=”” icon_circle_color=”” width=”” alignment=”center” /][fusion_recent_posts layout=”default” hover_type=”none” columns=”3″ number_posts=”3″ offset=”0″ pull_by=”category” cat_slug=”research-briefs” exclude_cats=”” tag_slug=”” exclude_tags=”” thumbnail=”yes” title=”yes” meta=”no” meta_author=”no” meta_categories=”no” meta_date=”yes” meta_comments=”yes” meta_tags=”no” content_alignment=”” excerpt=”no” excerpt_length=”35″ strip_html=”yes” scrolling=”no” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” /][/fusion_builder_column][fusion_builder_column type=”1_4″ layout=”1_4″ spacing=”” center_content=”no” hover_type=”none” link=”” min_height=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”left top” background_repeat=”no-repeat” border_size=”0″ border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” last=”no”][fusion_title hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”briefsummary” id=”” content_align=”left” size=”3″ font_size=”” line_height=”” letter_spacing=”” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” margin_top_mobile=”” margin_bottom_mobile=”” text_color=”” style_type=”none” sep_color=””]

    Published

    April 23, 2019

    This research brief was funded by the Government of Canada’s Labour Program for the Women in the Workplace Symposium that took place at Rotman on May 09/10, 2019.

    The opinions and interpretations in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Government of Canada.

    To see more from this event, check out #Womenintheworkplace.

    Government of Canada logo

    [/fusion_title][fusion_widget_area name=”avada-custom-sidebar-researchbriefsidebar” title_size=”” title_color=”” background_color=”” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” /][/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]

  • The gender wage gap

    The gender wage gap

    [fusion_builder_container admin_label=”” hundred_percent=”no” equal_height_columns=”no” menu_anchor=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”center center” background_repeat=”no-repeat” fade=”no” background_parallax=”none” enable_mobile=”no” parallax_speed=”0.3″ video_mp4=”” video_webm=”” video_ogv=”” video_url=”” video_aspect_ratio=”16:9″ video_loop=”yes” video_mute=”yes” video_preview_image=”” border_size=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” margin_top=”20″ margin_bottom=”” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=””][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=”3_4″ layout=”3_4″ spacing=”” center_content=”no” hover_type=”none” link=”” min_height=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”left top” background_repeat=”no-repeat” border_size=”0″ border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” last=”no”][fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_spacing=”” rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=””]

    Download this research brief (in English/en Français).
    Download the infographic (in English/en Français).

    Overview

    The gender wage gap is the difference in remuneration for paid work between women and men. There are many ways to calculate the gap, depending on what employment dynamics you want to identify.[1] Failure to offer equal pay for equal work, where women are paid less than men for performing the same job, accounts for a ~95 cent wage gap. More of the wage gap is explained by mothers who change jobs to ones with greater flexibility to manage their carework responsibilities. This often means switching to jobs that pay less and takes the wage gap to ~88 cents. When comparing annual earnings for both part-time and full-time workers in Canada, an even larger gender wage gap exists of ~70 cents, primarily because women more often work part-time in order to accommodate carework responsibilities.[2]

    In Canada, the gender wage gap ranges from 95 cents to 70 cents.

    Sources of the gender wage gap

    The gender wage gap varies by race and ethnicity.[3] According to The 2011 National Household Survey, when full-time median employment income is analyzed there is a ~92 cent wage gap between visible and non-visible minority women and a ~72 cent wage gap between visible minority men and women.[4] Earnings disparities are evident among transgender individuals as well. The 2011 Trans PULSE survey finds that while 71% of trans people in Ontario surveyed have at least some college or university education, about half make $15,000 per year or less.[5] 

    One major cause of the wage gap is job segregation. A whole host of factors conspire to segregate women into occupational fields that pay less,[6] such as childcare and retail.[7] Within firms, this might mean that women end up in internal, back-office roles rather than external or revenue-producing roles. Women also confront a motherhood penalty. Mothers are perceived to be less competent, and the time they take off work to have children decelerates salary raises and promotions.[8]    

    People looking to get ahead in their jobs must often work long hours, but the gendered allocation of family responsibilities prevents women from being able to do this.[9] As a result, jobs requiring employees to work long hours produce some of the largest wage gaps.[10] 

    How to address the gender wage gap

    Several efforts have been put forth for addressing the gender wage gap, some of which have mixed results:

    • Pay transparency: Pay transparency (such as Provincial Sunshine laws) can reduce the wage gap. Recent regulation in the UK has mainly highlighted the dearth of women in top earning roles and has had less to say about actual problems with equal pay for equal work. Compelling pay transparency may risk that companies focus on public relations rather than on substantive change.[11]
    • Pay equity: Canada is a leader in Pay Equity legislation. Evidence suggests that pay equity has provided gains for women working in the public sector but because its application is focused on relatively narrow comparisons of job classes, it has not had a substantial impact on the larger wage gap.[12]   
    • Salary history bans: Because women have wage disparities beginning with their first job, salary history bans (in which employers are prohibited from asking potential employees about prior salaries) could be a helpful intervention in preventing the gap from widening.[13] However, employers can also find ways around the ban by asking about salary expectations instead of previous salaries.[14]   

    Management might also consider:

    • Redesign job structures: In the pharmacy industry, technological improvements to job design such as the standardization of procedures and the creation of online databases, have decreased the costs of temporal flexibility for female pharmacists, and basically closed the gender wage gap in that field. [15]   
    • Reconsider valorizing working long hours: In many professions, it may be assumed that long hours and extensive “face time” is associated with top performance. But, some of those assumptions are out dated. Leaders can transform workplace cultures that place too much emphasis on working long hours and instead focus on outcomes.[16]
    • Support more accessible childcare: As long as family responsibilities are unequally shared, the gender gap is not likely to close.[17] Providing affordable and accessible onsite childcare or subsidizing access to other child care sources may help parents who wish to work full-time.
    • Provide growth opportunities: Many organizations assume that mothers are not interested in advancement or tough assignments that might lead to promotions. Organizations can do a better job of giving opportunities to people who want them and would benefit from them.

    References

    [1] Rubery, J., & Grimshaw, D. (2014). The 40-year pursuit of equal pay: a case of constantly moving goalposts. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 39(2), 319-343.

    [2] Canadian Women’s Foundation, The Facts About The Gender Wage Gap in Canada: https://www.canadianwomen.org/the-facts/the-wage-gap/

    Sarah Kaplan, The Motherhood Penalty, University of Toronto Magazine: https://magazine.utoronto.ca/opinion/the-motherhood-penalty-gender-wage-gap-sarah-kaplan/

    [3] Kate McInturff, The Gendered And Racialized Wage Gap, Canadian Women’s Foundation: https://www.canadianwomen.org/deficit-worth-worrying-gendered-racialized-wage-gap/

    [4] Statistics Canada, Visible Minority Women: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/89-503-x/2015001/article/14315-eng.htm

    [5] Bauer G, Nussbaum N, Travers R, Munro L, Pyne J, Redman N. We’ve Got Work to Do: Workplace Discrimination and Employment Challenges for Trans People in Ontario. Trans PULSE e-Bulletin, 30 May, 2011. 2(1). Downloadable in English or French at http://www.transpulseproject.ca

    [6] Petersen, T., & Morgan, L. A. (1995). Separate and unequal: Occupation-establishment sex segregation and the gender wage gap. American Journal of Sociology, 101(2), 329-365.

    Reskin, B. F., & Roos, P. A. (2009). Job queues, gender queues: Explaining women’s inroads into male occupations. Temple University Press.

    Levanon, A., England, P., & Allison, P. (2009). Occupational feminization and pay: Assessing causal dynamics using 1950–2000 US census data. Social Forces, 88(2), 865-891.

    [7] England, P., Budig, M., & Folbre, N. (2002). Wages of virtue: The relative pay of care work. Social problems, 49(4), 455-473.

    [8] Budig, M. J., & England, P. (2001). The wage penalty for motherhood. American sociological review, 204-225.

    Budig, M. J., Misra, J., & Boeckmann, I. (2012). The motherhood penalty in cross-national perspective: The importance of work-family policies and cultural attitudes. Social Politics, 19(2), 163-193.

    Kleven, H., Landais, C., and Søgaard J. E.. (2018). “Children and Gender Inequality: Evidence from Denmark.” Working Paper. National Bureau of Economic Research, 1-57. 

    [9] Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender & Society, 4(2), 139-158.

    Reid, E. (2015). Embracing, passing, revealing, and the ideal worker image: How people navigate expected and experienced professional identities. Organization Science, 26(4), 997-1017.

    [10] Goldin, C., 2014. A grand gender convergence: Its last chapter. American Economic Review, 104(4), pp.1091–1119.

    [11] Sarah Kaplan, The Motherhood Penalty, University of Toronto Magazine: https://magazine.utoronto.ca/opinion/the-motherhood-penalty-gender-wage-gap-sarah-kaplan/

    [12] Singh, P., & Peng, P. (2010). Canada’s bold experiment with pay equity. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 25(7), 570-585.

    [13] Corbett, C., & Hill, C. (2012). Graduating to a Pay Gap: The Earnings of Women and Men One Year after College Graduation. American Association of University Women.

    Christina Cauterucci, Equal Pay Legislation Banning Salary History Questions Is Absolutely Based in Data, Slate: https://slate.com/human-interest/2017/04/equal-pay-legislation-banning-salary-history-questions-is-based-in-data.html

    [14] Adler, Laura. 2019. “You’re Worth What You’re Paid: Why Employers Use Past Pay to Set Future Pay.” Working Paper. Harvard University.

    [15] Goldin, C., & Katz, L. F. (2016). A most egalitarian profession: pharmacy and the evolution of a family-friendly occupation. Journal of Labor Economics, 34(3), 705-746.

    [16] Goldin, C., 2014. A grand gender convergence: Its last chapter. American Economic Review, 104(4), pp.1091–1119.

    [17] Angelov, N., Johansson, P. and Lindahl, E., 2016. Parenthood and the gender gap in Pay. Journal of Labor Economics, 34(3), pp.545-579.

    [/fusion_text][fusion_separator style_type=”none” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” sep_color=”” top_margin=”20″ bottom_margin=”20″ border_size=”” icon=”” icon_circle=”” icon_circle_color=”” width=”” alignment=”center” /][fusion_button link=”https://www.gendereconomy.org/research-briefs/” text_transform=”” title=”” target=”_blank” link_attributes=”” alignment=”” modal=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” color=”custom” button_gradient_top_color=”#62bd19″ button_gradient_bottom_color=”#62bd19″ button_gradient_top_color_hover=”#00c2e2″ button_gradient_bottom_color_hover=”#00c2e2″ accent_color=”” accent_hover_color=”” type=”” bevel_color=”” border_width=”” size=”” stretch=”yes” shape=”” icon=”” icon_position=”left” icon_divider=”no” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=””]See more research briefs[/fusion_button][fusion_separator style_type=”none” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” sep_color=”” top_margin=”20″ bottom_margin=”20″ border_size=”” icon=”” icon_circle=”” icon_circle_color=”” width=”” alignment=”center” /][fusion_recent_posts layout=”default” hover_type=”none” columns=”3″ number_posts=”3″ offset=”0″ pull_by=”category” cat_slug=”research-briefs” exclude_cats=”” tag_slug=”” exclude_tags=”” thumbnail=”yes” title=”yes” meta=”no” meta_author=”no” meta_categories=”no” meta_date=”yes” meta_comments=”yes” meta_tags=”no” content_alignment=”” excerpt=”no” excerpt_length=”35″ strip_html=”yes” scrolling=”no” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” /][/fusion_builder_column][fusion_builder_column type=”1_4″ layout=”1_4″ spacing=”” center_content=”no” hover_type=”none” link=”” min_height=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”left top” background_repeat=”no-repeat” border_size=”0″ border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” last=”no”][fusion_title hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”briefsummary” id=”” content_align=”left” size=”3″ font_size=”” line_height=”” letter_spacing=”” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” margin_top_mobile=”” margin_bottom_mobile=”” text_color=”” style_type=”none” sep_color=””]

    Published

    April 23, 2019

    This research brief was funded by the Government of Canada’s Labour Program for the Women in the Workplace Symposium that took place at Rotman on May 09/10, 2019.

    The opinions and interpretations in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Government of Canada.

    To see more from this event, check out #Womenintheworkplace.

    Government of Canada logo

    [/fusion_title][fusion_widget_area name=”avada-custom-sidebar-researchbriefsidebar” title_size=”” title_color=”” background_color=”” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” /][/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]

  • Harassment and violence in the era of #MeToo

    Harassment and violence in the era of #MeToo

    [fusion_builder_container admin_label=”” hundred_percent=”no” equal_height_columns=”no” menu_anchor=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”center center” background_repeat=”no-repeat” fade=”no” background_parallax=”none” enable_mobile=”no” parallax_speed=”0.3″ video_mp4=”” video_webm=”” video_ogv=”” video_url=”” video_aspect_ratio=”16:9″ video_loop=”yes” video_mute=”yes” video_preview_image=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” margin_top=”20″ margin_bottom=”” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” type=”legacy”][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=”3_4″ layout=”3_4″ spacing=”” center_content=”no” hover_type=”none” link=”” min_height=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”left top” background_repeat=”no-repeat” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” last=”false” border_sizes_top=”0″ border_sizes_bottom=”0″ border_sizes_left=”0″ border_sizes_right=”0″ first=”true” spacing_right=””][fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_spacing=”” rule_style=”” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” hue=”” saturation=”” lightness=”” alpha=”” content_alignment_medium=”” content_alignment_small=”” content_alignment=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” sticky_display=”normal,sticky” class=”” id=”” margin_top=”” margin_right=”” margin_bottom=”” margin_left=”” fusion_font_family_text_font=”” fusion_font_variant_text_font=”” font_size=”” line_height=”” letter_spacing=”” text_transform=”” text_color=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_color=”” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_delay=”0″ animation_offset=””]

    Download this research brief (in English/en Français).
    Download the infographic (in English/en Français).

    Overview

    In 2016, 4% of Canadian women reported being sexually harassed in the workplace, compared with less than 1% of men. Due to underreporting, however, these numbers may be higher. Certain groups of women are more vulnerable than others: Aboriginal women were more likely to report sexual harassment at work than non-Aboriginal women (10% versus 4%), and lesbian or bisexual women were more likely to report having experienced sexual harassment than heterosexual women (11% versus 4%).[1]      

    Approximately every six days, a woman in Canada is killed by her intimate partner.[2] Aboriginal women, including First Nations, Inuit and Métis women, are six times more likely to be killed by their partners than non-Aboriginal women.[3] Transgender people are almost twice as likely to report experiencing intimate partner violence than cisgender women and men.[4]   

    Victims of sexual harassment and violence also experience psychological trauma, which makes it difficult to focus on work.[5] Many victims experience lower work productivity, increased use of sick leave, and higher job turnover due to toxic work environments.[6]

    In 2016, 4% of Canadian women reported being sexually harassed at work.

    Consequences of sexual harassment and violence at work

    Sexual harassment claims are prevalent in traditionally male-dominated industries, such as policing, firefighting, mining, the military, finance, and construction work. However, low-wage workers are most vulnerable to harassment: women working in hotel service, restaurant, and caregiving are most likely to suffer sexual harassment.[7] Those most vulnerable to sexual violence at work are children that are in forced into labour, forced and bonded labourers, migrant workers, domestic workers, health services workers, and sex workers.[8]

    Victims of harassment and violence are often compelled to leave their job, and subsequently start over in a new position. This may impede progression up the career ladder.[9] Those experiencing harassment may also be held back from leadership roles, especially if the harasser has decision-making authority for promotions. Women in leadership may also be subject to harassment if they are seen as too “uppity.”[10]

    Experiencing violence at home makes it difficult to maintain a job. Victims of abuse experience higher rates of depression, or may call in sick in order to recover from and hide injuries.[11] Abusers may prevent victims from getting to work, causing them to be late or to miss work altogether. Abusers may excessively call, email, or text victims while they are at work, or stalk their victim. Victims may have to move to escape violence.[12]

    Ways to combat sexual harassment and violence at work

    Because sexual harassment and violence are underreported—often due to fear of professional retaliation—it is difficult to combat.[13] Groups that are already marginalized along lines of race and citizenship are less likely to report harassment and violence. As a result, harassment and violence can become a normalized part of everyday life.[14]

    The #MeToo movement has had an unintended consequence that further disadvantages women: male executives have publicly stated that their fear of being accused of harassment has led them to stop offering the mentorship or sponsorship women need to advance their careers.[15]   

    There are several measures firms can take to encourage deterrence and reporting of sexual harassment and violence in the workplace:

    • Name the behaviour: Employers can provide specific guidelines and examples of what they consider as sexual harassment and violence (e.g. crude jokes, displaying sexual screensavers or porn, sexual advances, or repeated unwanted requests for a date) to increase awareness of inappropriate and illegal behaviour.
    • Improving reporting mechanisms: New web-based tools can improve reporting by allowing victims to decide when and how a report advances and by flagging repeat offenders more effectively.

    • Bystander training: While evidence on the effectiveness of anti-harassment training is mixed, bystander training has been found to be more effective.[16] Bystanders can learn to disrupt sexual harassment and assault before it happens.[17] 

    • Buy-in from leadership: Leaders must champion changes in organizational culture by taking an explicit stance against sexual harassment and violence. They must deal with it expediently when it does occur, regardless of the job performance of the perpetrator.

    • Continue to mentor and sponsor women: Executives must continue to mentor and sponsor women in order to help them advance in their careers.

    References

    [1] Hango, D., & Moyser, M. (2018). Harassment in Canadian Workplaces. Statistics Canada/Statisique Canada.

    [2] https://www.canadianwomen.org/the-facts/gender-based-violence/

    [3] Statistics Canada: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/89-503-x/2010001/article/11442-eng.htm#a34

    [4] Canadian Labour Congress: http://canadianlabour.ca/issues-research/domestic-violence-work

    [5] Ibid

    [6] U.S. Equal Employment Commission: https://www.eeoc.gov//

    [7] Gruber, J., & Morgan, P. (Eds.). (2005). In the company of men: Male dominance and sexual harassment. Northeastern University Press

    Welsh, S., Carr, J., MacQuarrie, B., & Huntley, A. (2006). “I’m Not Thinking of It as Sexual Harassment” Understanding Harassment across Race and Citizenship. Gender & Society, 20(1), 87-107.

    [8] Cruz, A., & Klinger, S. (2011). Gender-based violence in the world of work: Overview and selected annotated bibliography. Geneva: International Labour Office.

    [9] Mueller, C. W., De Coster, S., & Estes, S. B. (2001). Sexual harassment in the workplace: Unanticipated consequences of modern social control in organizations. Work and Occupations, 28(4), 411-446.

    [10] Berdahl, J. L. (2007). The sexual harassment of uppity women. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 425.

    [11] Welsh, S. (1999). Gender and sexual harassment. Annual review of sociology, 25(1), 169-190.

    [12] Canadian Labour Congress: http://canadianlabour.ca/issues-research/domestic-violence-work

    [13] Feldblum, C. and Lipnic, V. (2016). Report of co-chairs. Select Task Force on the Study of Harassment in the Workplace, US. EEOC. https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/task_force/harassment/

    Golshan, T. (2017). Study Finds 75 Percent of Workplace Harassment Victims Experienced Retaliation When They Spoke Up. https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/10/15/16438750/weinstein-sexual-harassment-facts

    [14] Welsh et al. 2006

    [15] Miller, C. C. (2017). Unintended consequences of sexual harassment scandals. New York Times.

    [16] Schulte, Brigid. 2018. To combat harassment, more companies should try bystander training. Harvard Business Review.

    [17] Orchowski, L. M., Berry-Cabán, C. S., Prisock, K., Borsari, B., & Kazemi, D. M. (2018). Evaluations of sexual assault prevention programs in military settings: a synthesis of the research literature. Military medicine, 183, 421-428.

    [/fusion_text][fusion_separator style_type=”none” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” sep_color=”” top_margin=”20″ bottom_margin=”20″ border_size=”” icon=”” icon_circle=”” icon_circle_color=”” width=”” alignment=”center” /][fusion_button link=”https://www.gendereconomy.org/research-briefs/” text_transform=”” title=”” target=”_blank” link_attributes=”” alignment=”” modal=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” color=”custom” button_gradient_top_color=”#62bd19″ button_gradient_bottom_color=”#62bd19″ button_gradient_top_color_hover=”#00c2e2″ button_gradient_bottom_color_hover=”#00c2e2″ accent_color=”” accent_hover_color=”” type=”” bevel_color=”” size=”” stretch=”yes” icon=”” icon_position=”left” icon_divider=”no” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=””]See more research briefs[/fusion_button][fusion_separator style_type=”none” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” sep_color=”” top_margin=”20″ bottom_margin=”20″ border_size=”” icon=”” icon_circle=”” icon_circle_color=”” width=”” alignment=”center” /][fusion_recent_posts layout=”default” hover_type=”none” columns=”3″ number_posts=”3″ offset=”0″ pull_by=”category” cat_slug=”research-briefs” exclude_cats=”” tag_slug=”” exclude_tags=”” thumbnail=”yes” title=”yes” meta=”no” meta_author=”no” meta_categories=”no” meta_date=”yes” meta_comments=”yes” meta_tags=”no” content_alignment=”” excerpt=”no” excerpt_length=”35″ strip_html=”yes” scrolling=”no” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” /][/fusion_builder_column][fusion_builder_column type=”1_4″ layout=”1_4″ spacing=”” center_content=”no” hover_type=”none” link=”” min_height=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”left top” background_repeat=”no-repeat” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” last=”true” border_sizes_top=”0″ border_sizes_bottom=”0″ border_sizes_left=”0″ border_sizes_right=”0″ first=”false”][fusion_title hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”briefsummary” id=”” content_align=”left” size=”3″ font_size=”” line_height=”” letter_spacing=”” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” margin_top_mobile=”” margin_bottom_mobile=”” text_color=”” style_type=”none” sep_color=”” margin_top_small=”” margin_bottom_small=””]

    Published

    April 23, 2019

    This research brief was funded by the Government of Canada’s Labour Program for the Women in the Workplace Symposium that took place at Rotman on May 09/10, 2019.

    The opinions and interpretations in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Government of Canada.

    To see more from this event, check out #Womenintheworkplace.

    Government of Canada logo

    [/fusion_title][fusion_widget_area name=”avada-custom-sidebar-researchbriefsidebar” title_size=”” title_color=”” background_color=”” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” /][/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]

  • Parental leave: Why we need to talk about fatherhood

    Parental leave: Why we need to talk about fatherhood

    [fusion_builder_container admin_label=”” hundred_percent=”no” equal_height_columns=”no” menu_anchor=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”center center” background_repeat=”no-repeat” fade=”no” background_parallax=”none” enable_mobile=”no” parallax_speed=”0.3″ video_mp4=”” video_webm=”” video_ogv=”” video_url=”” video_aspect_ratio=”16:9″ video_loop=”yes” video_mute=”yes” video_preview_image=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” margin_top=”20″ margin_bottom=”” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” type=”legacy”][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=”3_4″ layout=”3_4″ spacing=”” center_content=”no” hover_type=”none” link=”” min_height=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”left top” background_repeat=”no-repeat” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” last=”false” border_sizes_top=”0″ border_sizes_bottom=”0″ border_sizes_left=”0″ border_sizes_right=”0″ type=”3_4″ first=”true” spacing_right=””][fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_spacing=”” rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=””]

    Download the infographic.

    “Parental leave” is often understood to be synonymous with “maternity leave,” but that’s only half of the story. Indeed, data from Statistics Canada shows that in 2017, 90% of mothers took maternity leave, but only 12% of fathers took or intended to take paternity leave.[1] However, attention is beginning to shift to paternity leaves and the role of fatherhood. Research on parenting, which has traditionally examined the effect of the mother on children’s outcomes, is now focusing on the importance of the father.[2] [3] At the organizational and policy level, decision-makers have begun to implement paternity-leave policies to encourage fathers to share child-rearing responsibilities. For example, in 2015 Goldman Sachs doubled the length of their paternity leaves from two weeks to four weeks.[4] In Canada, new federal parental leave policies created a “use it or lose it” five weeks of leave for the second parent in an effort to encourage fathers to take time off to spend with their infants.[5]

    To shed light on the implications of paternity leaves and fatherhood for policy and households, the Institute for Gender and the Economy held a panel discussion with leading scholars during its 3rd Annual Research Roundtable at the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management. Professors Kate Bezanson (Brock University), Natasha Cabrera (University of Maryland), Shauna Cooper (UNC Chapel Hill), Nico Lacetera (University of Toronto, Institute for Management and Innovation), and Geoff Leonardelli (University of Toronto, Rotman School) debated the issues and highlighted the important intersections of gender, race, socioeconomic status and identity that shape parenting and paternity leave.

    What are the benefits of paternity leave?

    The arguments for supporting paternity leaves have frequently been linked to the benefits of fatherhood for children, fathers and households.

    • Fathers play an important role in child development. Research in developmental psychology has documented the benefits of father-involvement for children; starting from before the child is even born and extending into their adulthood. For instance, research shows that fathers’ prenatal involvement (such as going to ultrasound appointments with the mother) is important for both the mother and child; and predicts later paternal engagement.[6] Research also finds that increased engagement of fathers at an early age, predicts children’s linguistic development (because on average, fathers’ speech patterns differ from mothers).[7] [8] In adolescence, an actively engaged father predicts increased academic achievement among adolescent girls and decreased risk behaviour among adolescent boys.[9]
    • Having a father has intergenerational effects. Research suggests that fatherhood may have benefits that extend beyond the immediate household. Research shows that men whose own fathers played an active role in their lives reported greater involvement with their own children.[10] [11] Specifically, ongoing research shows that when men reported their own fathers being involved in their lives, they modelled those fatherhood behaviours (e.g., better manage work demands and parental involvement). Men whose fathers were absent from their lives stated that they had to learn about fatherhood from the media, television, and other indirect sources. This, in turn, affected their parenting self-efficacy–these men reported perceiving lower parenting abilities than men whose fathers had been involved in their lives and, as a result, were less likely to be involved in their own children’s lives.

    Men whose fathers were absent from their lives stated that they had to learn about fatherhood from the media, television, and other indirect sources. This in turn affected their parenting self-efficacy.

    What are the barriers to fathers taking paternity leaves?

    Statistics show that even with parental leave policies in place, men do not take advantage of them. In Canada (outside of Quebec) only 12% of men take paternity leaves. In the United States, only about 10% of workers are employed at a workplace that provides paid leave specifically for having a child.[12] Nonetheless, extant evidence suggests that most American fathers (89%) take some parental leave from work, but the leave is typically no more than one week—a fraction of the leave that fathers take in many other industrialized countries.[13] For example, in Sweden, parents are currently entitled to 480 days paid parental leave, of which 90 days are exclusively reserved for fathers on a “use it or lose it” basis.[14] As of 2013, 88% of Swedish fathers took paid paternity leave,[15]accounting for a quarter of those who take paternity leave, and this number is on the rise.[16]

    This raises the question – if fathers involvement in childcare is so beneficial for households, why don’t more men take paternity leaves?

    • Psychological barriers: fatherhood ideologies. Some men may feel inadequate as a father and withdraw from their parenting role as a result. The absence of one’s own father predicts this lowered fathering self-efficacy, and factors like social class also play an important role. For instance, fathers from lower socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds are more likely to link fatherhood to a provider role and thus, may focus solely on providing financial support for their children.[17] [18] Fatherhood ideologies are also shaped by intersections with race. For example, in the US, African American fathers are aware of the negative stereotypes specifically associated with being an African American father, such as being absent fathers or “deadbeat” fathers.[19] This can influence the likelihood that African American fathers take parental leave, as well as the way they interact with their children–something researchers call “fathering through a public lens.” [19-21] Research also shows that African American fathers who have yet to cope with their own experiences with racial discrimination feel less comfortable discussing these issues with their children, especially with boys.[19] [21] [22] As such, race, social class, and personal experiences influence the way fathers assess their own fathering abilities and ultimately how involved they are with their children.
    • Psychological barriers: conceptions of masculinity. The way fathers think about masculinity can influence their parental involvement and the likelihood of taking parental leave. Traditional beliefs of masculinity often involve being the family “breadwinner,” as well as being strong, dominant, and always in control.[23] [24] Taking a leave, like most care-taking roles that involve staying at home and “sacrificing” work for family, are stereotypically perceived as “feminine” and in direct conflict with beliefs about masculinity.[25] Therefore, men may feel as if they are obligated to preserve their masculine identity, and as a result, forgo the option to take a leave.[26] [27] [28]
    • Societal barriers: Race, class, and the privilege of parental leave. Not all fathers who want to take a leave have the privilege of doing so, yet the current leave system assumes they do. African American fathers, for example, are aware of societal stereotypes that others at work hold about race and fatherhood, so they may forgo parental leave in order to counteract these stereotypes and conform to “ideal worker” images.[19-21] Generally, low-income fathers face societal and economic barriers that fathers from middle or higher income brackets don’t. For example, they might need to prioritize financial contributions to the family over taking parental leave, and are more likely to face job loss if they take time out of the workforce.[29] [30] As such, the image of an “ideal family,” which typically implies a straight, Caucasian, middle or upper class family, can lead to a biased and oversimplified picture of fatherhood and mask the privilege of access to paternity leaves.
    • Policy barriers: lack of architecture. The design of leave policies also prevents some fathers from taking leave. Caregiving leaves do not exist within a silo, and there need to be systems of support in place to encourage uptake. For example, if the father is the higher earner in the family, his leave is potentially costlier for family finances., policies need to take into account incentives for men to take paternity leaves. Further, research shows that organizations do a poor job of integrating women back from maternity leave,[31] [32] therefore men may be discouraged from taking leave for fear of hurting their careers. To counter this, decision-makers should consider options for re-entry into organizations, and childcare, when designing family policies.
    • Policy barriers: reinforcing the privilege of paternity leave. The current policies in place also serve to reinforce the “privilege” of paternity leaves. For instance, income replacement rates for parental leaves are low, so only households that can afford a paternity leave can take it, and these households typically are middle and upper SES. [5] [33]  Research has shown that policies aimed at expanding uptake of parental and paternity leave increase the sharing of benefits across all income groups, but do so three times as much for middle and high-income families than for low-income families.[34]

    How can we remove some of these barriers to paternity leave?

    Given these barriers, improving men’s access to and use of parental leave policies will require interventions at multiple levels.

    • Removing psychological barriers: increasing fatherhood self-efficacy. One way to increase fathers’ confidence is to provide resources and room to improve. As an example, researchers have developed evidence-based parenting books for dads. These books allow fathers to recognize their unique role in parenting and provide training and resources to grow into that role. Encouraging fathers to find other men to talk to about fatherhood can also help new fathers make sense of their roles as fathers and increase involvement. Finally, mothers can also play a role by making space for fathers to try, fail, and learn about parenting, rather than succumbing to the urge to jump in and do the job themselves.
    • Removing psychological barriers: opening up definitions of masculinity. Like other identities, definitions of masculinity must be broadened to include a wider array of traits, such as being nurturing, persistent, and non-judgmental. Indeed, the latest research suggests that standard views of masculinity are not held by everyone: some people do not necessarily see masculinity as antithetical to femininity or vice versa.[35] [36] Studies have identified models for stay-at-home dads to navigate their masculine identities by incorporating their nurturing roles as domestic caregivers.[37] As a whole, these findings suggest that there is space to redefine and negotiate masculinity in ways that support fatherhood.
    • Removing societal and policy barriers: designing better leave policies. Effective policies will be designed to address the differential access to leaves for fathers from different social classes and racial groups. For example, a fixed rather than relative income replacement policy for paternity leaves could increase uptake and correct intergenerational wealth gaps. Further, policy-makers should be aware of the architecture required to support and sustain parental leave policies, such as having childcare options and paths to re-enter organizations after a leave. More importantly, policy design needs to create incentives for men to take leaves. For example, in 2006, Quebec put in place the Quebec Parental Insurance Plan (QPIP), which has an income replacement of 70% for both maternity and paternity leaves. As a result, Quebec saw the highest rate of uptake for paternity leaves: 81.2% of fathers in Quebec take parental leave, compared to 12% of fathers in the rest of Canada.[1] [34]

    Policy-makers should be aware of the architecture required to support and sustain parental and paternity leave policies, such as having childcare options and paths to re-enter organizations after a leave.

    • Removing societal and policy barriers: the role of organizations. Even if psychological and policy barriers to paternity leaves are removed, fathers may still choose not to take leaves if corporate policies or cultures are perceived to be unsupportive. For example, studies investigating company culture at a top consulting firm found that men felt pressured to maintain the ideal worker image of a workaholic. Even when there were options for flexible work practices, men took those opportunities stealthily, if at all.[26] [27] These findings suggest that corporate cultures play a major role in how fathers think their decision to take paternity leave will impact their career.

    Remaining challenges

    Attention to paternity leave is important because it can affect many other policies and economic outcomes, including but not limited to economic outcomes for women and care workers, as well as workplaces and cultures. For example, research suggests that women in Canada provide 50% more unpaid labour at home than men.[38] We also know that much of the gender wage gap is driven by women switching jobs after the birth of their first child so that they can accommodate the increased burden of household labour associated with childcare.[39] [40] By involving men in parenting from the start, we can begin to balance household responsibilities, thus creating greater economic opportunities for women and greater parenting opportunities for men.

    As our panel discussion suggests, paternity leaves are complicated. Across the board, there are benefits for the household when fathers are principal caregivers early in the child rearing process. However, the panellists highlighted several challenges and barriers that exist at the individual, societal, and policy levels that prevent fathers from taking paternity leave and reaping the benefits. 

    The consensus is that although there is no easy answer, the conversation around paternity leaves needs to continue. Bringing fatherhood to the forefront of the conversation about parental leave is the first step towards informing better policies and changing societal expectations around what it means to be a father.

    References

    [1] Statistics Canada (2018). Employment Insurance Coverage Survey, 2017. Retrieved from https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/181115/dq181115a-eng.htm

    [2] Bradley, R.H., & Cabrera, N.J. (2014).Retooling: Evolution in research on fathers- A commentary. Infant Mental Health Journal, 35(5), 523-526.

    [3] Cabrera, N., Fitzgerald, H., Bradley, R., & Roggman, L. (2014). The ecology of father-child relationships: An expanded model. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 6, 336-354. DOI: 10.1111/jftr.12054

    [4] Rooney, B. (2015). Goldman Sachs doubles paternity leave to 4 weeks. Retrieved from https://money.cnn.com/2015/06/01/pf/goldman-sachs-paternity-leave/index.html

    [5] Alini, E. (2018). Liberals introduce new paternity leave, plan for pay-equity law. Retrieved from https://globalnews.ca/news/4051079/paternity-leave-federal-budget-2018/

    [6] Cabrera, N., Shannon, J., Mitchell, S., & West, J. (2009). Mexican American mothers and fathers’ prenatal attitudes and father prenatal involvement: Links to mother-infant interaction and father engagement. Sex Roles, 60, 510-526.

    [7] Rowe, M. L., Leech, K. A., & Cabrera, N. J. (2016). Going beyond input quantity: Wh-Questions matter for toddlers’ language and cognitive development. Cognitive Science.

    [8] Schwab, J. F., Rowe, M., Cabrera, N. J., Lew-Williams, C. (in press). Fathers’ repetition of words is coupled with children’s vocabularies. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology.

    [9] Cooper, S.M., White-Johnson, R., Brown Griffin, C., Metzger, I., Avery, M., Eaddy, H., Shephard, C., & Guthrie, B. (2015). Associations between community involvement and risk behavior engagement among African American adolescents: Empowerment beliefs as a mediator? Journal of Black Psychology.

    [10] Belsky, J., Jaffee, S. R., Sligo, J., Woodward, L., & Silva, P. A. (2005). Intergenerational transmission of warm‐sensitive‐stimulating parenting: A prospective study of mothers and fathers of 3‐year‐olds. Child Development, 76(2), 384-396.

    [11] Pleck, J. H. (2007). Why could father involvement benefit children? Theoretical perspectives. Applied Development Science, 11(4), 196-202.

    [12] National Partnership for Women & Families. Washington, D.C., United States of America: 2012. Expecting better: A state-by-state analysis of laws that help new parents. (2) Retrieved from: http://go.nationalpartnership.org/site/DocServer/Expecting_Better_Report.pdf?docID=10301.

    [13] Nepomnyaschy L, Waldfogel J. Paternity leave and fathers’ involvement with their young children: Evidence from the American Ecls-B. Community, Work and Family. 2007;10(4):427–453.

    [14] https://sweden.se/life/society/work-life-balance

    [15] Harrington, B., Van Deusen, F., Fraone, J. S., Eddy, S., & Haas, L. (2014). The new dad: Take your leave. Center for Work & Family, Carroll School of Management. Boston.

    [16] https://sweden.se/society/gender-equality-in-sweden/

    [17] Bryan, D. M. (2013). To parent or provide? The effect of the provider role on low-income men’s decisions about fatherhood and paternal engagement. Fathering, 11(1), 71-90.

    [18] Paschal, A. M., Lewis-Moss, R. K., & Hsiao, T. (2011). Perceived fatherhood roles and parenting behaviors among African American teen fathers. Journal of Adolescent Research, 26(1), 61-83.

    [19] Cooper, S.M., Smalls-Glover, C., Metzger, I., & Brown, C. (2015). African American fathers’ racial socialization patterns: Associations with and racial identity beliefs and discrimination experiences. Family Relations, 64(2), 278-290

    [20] Cooper, S. M., Smalls-Glover, C., Neblett, E. W., & Banks, K. H. (2015). Racial socialization practices among African American fathers: A profile-oriented approach. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 16(1), 11-22.

    [21] Hammond, W.P., Matthews, D., Cooper, S.M., Johnson, S., & Caldwell, C. H. (2014). The role of paternal health socialization in preadolescent African American male health behavior, beliefs, and outcomes.  In K. Vaughans & W. Spielberg (Eds.). The Psychology of Black Boys and Adolescents. Praeger Publishers.

    [22] Stevenson Jr, H. C., Cameron, R., Herrero-Taylor, T., & Davis, G. Y. (2002). Development of the teenager experience of racial socialization scale: Correlates of race-related socialization frequency from the perspective of Black youth. Journal of Black Psychology, 28(2), 84-106.

    [23] Schrock, D., & Schwalbe, M. (2009). Men, masculinity, and manhood acts. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 277–295.

    [24] Vandello, J. A., Bosson, J. K., Cohen, D., Burnaford, R. M., & Weaver, J. R. (2008). Precarious manhood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1325–1339.

    [25] Bosson, J. K., & Michniewicz, K. S. (2013). Gender dichotomization at the level of ingroup identity: What it is, and why men use it more than women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 425– 442.

    [26] Reid, E. (2015). Why some men pretend to work 80-hour weeks. Harvard Business Review.

    [27] Reid, E. (2015). Embracing, passing, revealing, and the ideal worker image: How people navigate expected and experienced professional identities. Organization Science, 26(4), 997-1017.

    [28] Padavic, I., Ely, R. J., & Reid, E. M. (2016). Explaining the Persistence of Gender Inequality: The Work-Family Narrative as a Social Defense against the 24/7 Work Culture. Harvard Business School.

    [29] Cabrera, N. J., Ryan, R. M., Mitchell, S. J., Shannon, J. D., & Tamis-LeMonda, C. S. (2008). Low-income, nonresident father involvement with their toddlers: Variation by fathers’ race and ethnicity. Journal of Family Psychology, 22(4), 643.

    [30] Huang, C. C., Mincy, R. B., & Garfinkel, I. (2005). Child support obligations and low‐income fathers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(5), 1213-1225.

    [31] Hofferth, S. L., & Curtin, S. C. (2006). Parental leave statutes and maternal return to work after childbirth in the United States. Work and Occupations, 33(1), 73-105.

    [32] Aisenbrey, S., Evertsson, M., & Grunow, D. (2009). Is there a career penalty for mothers’ time out? A comparison of Germany, Sweden and the United States. Social Forces, 88(2), 573-605.

    [33] Government of Canada (2018). EI Maternity and Parental Benefits – Eligibility. Retrieved from https://www.canada.ca/en/services/benefits/ei/ei-maternity-parental/eligibility.html

    [34] Margolis, R., Hou, F., Haan, M., & Holm, A. (2018). Use of Parental Benefits by Family Income in Canada: Two Policy Changes. Journal of Marriage and Family.

    [35] Leonardelli, G.J. & Toh, S.M. (2015). Social categorization in intergroup contexts: Three kinds of self-categorization. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 9(2), 69–87, DOI: 10.1111/spc3.12150

    [36] Leonardelli, G.J. (2018). Three kinds of “Us and Them”: Reconsidering what we know about ingroups, outgroups, and self-categorization. Invited presentation at the University of Toronto’s Psychology Department.

    [37] Lee, J. Y., & Lee, S. J. (2018). Caring is masculine: Stay-at-home fathers and masculine identity. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 19(1), 47-48.

    [38] Statistics Canada (2019). Table  45-10-0014-01   Daily average time spent in hours on various activities by age group and sex, 15 years and over, Canada and provinces, 2015. Retrieved from https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=4510001401.

    [39] Angelov, Nilolay, Johansson, Per and Erica Lindahl, (2016) “Parenthood and the Gender Gap in Pay.” Journal of Labor Economics, 34(3) 545-579.

    [40] Pertold-Gebicka, Barbara, Pertold, Filip, and Nabanita Datta Gupta, (2016) “Employment Adjustments around Childbirth.” IZA Discussion Paper, No. 9685[/fusion_text][fusion_separator style_type=”none” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” sep_color=”” top_margin=”20″ bottom_margin=”20″ border_size=”” icon=”” icon_circle=”” icon_circle_color=”” width=”” alignment=”center” /][fusion_button link=”https://www.gendereconomy.org/category/research-overviews/” text_transform=”” title=”” target=”_blank” link_attributes=”” alignment=”” modal=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” color=”custom” button_gradient_top_color=”#62bd19″ button_gradient_bottom_color=”#62bd19″ button_gradient_top_color_hover=”#00c2e2″ button_gradient_bottom_color_hover=”#00c2e2″ accent_color=”” accent_hover_color=”” type=”” bevel_color=”” border_width=”” size=”” stretch=”yes” icon=”” icon_position=”left” icon_divider=”no” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” border_radius=””]See more research overviews[/fusion_button][fusion_separator style_type=”none” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” sep_color=”” top_margin=”20″ bottom_margin=”20″ border_size=”” icon=”” icon_circle=”” icon_circle_color=”” width=”” alignment=”center” /][fusion_recent_posts layout=”default” picture_size=”fixed” hover_type=”none” columns=”3″ number_posts=”3″ offset=”0″ pull_by=”category” cat_slug=”research-overviews” exclude_cats=”” tag_slug=”” exclude_tags=”” thumbnail=”yes” title=”yes” meta=”no” meta_author=”no” meta_categories=”no” meta_date=”yes” meta_comments=”yes” meta_tags=”no” content_alignment=”” excerpt=”no” excerpt_length=”35″ strip_html=”yes” scrolling=”no” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” /][/fusion_builder_column][fusion_builder_column type=”1_4″ layout=”1_4″ spacing=”” center_content=”no” hover_type=”none” link=”” min_height=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”left top” background_repeat=”no-repeat” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” last=”true” border_sizes_top=”0″ border_sizes_bottom=”0″ border_sizes_left=”0″ border_sizes_right=”0″ type=”1_4″ first=”false”][fusion_title hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”briefsummary” id=”” content_align=”left” size=”3″ font_size=”” line_height=”” letter_spacing=”” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” margin_top_mobile=”” margin_bottom_mobile=”” text_color=”” style_type=”none” sep_color=”” margin_top_small=”” margin_bottom_small=””]

    Research summary prepared by

    Joyce He, Ph.D. Candidate, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Rotman School of Management, U of T

    Published

    January 30, 2019

    [/fusion_title][fusion_widget_area name=”avada-custom-sidebar-researchbriefsidebar” title_size=”” title_color=”” background_color=”” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” /][/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]

  • Debate: Does diversity training work?

    Debate: Does diversity training work?

    [fusion_builder_container admin_label=”” hundred_percent=”no” equal_height_columns=”no” menu_anchor=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”center center” background_repeat=”no-repeat” fade=”no” background_parallax=”none” enable_mobile=”no” parallax_speed=”0.3″ video_mp4=”” video_webm=”” video_ogv=”” video_url=”” video_aspect_ratio=”16:9″ video_loop=”yes” video_mute=”yes” video_preview_image=”” border_size=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” margin_top=”20″ margin_bottom=”” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=””][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=”3_4″ layout=”3_4″ spacing=”” center_content=”no” hover_type=”none” link=”” min_height=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”left top” background_repeat=”no-repeat” border_size=”0″ border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” last=”no”][fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_spacing=”” rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” class=”” id=””]

    Download the infographic. View the video explainer.

    What do we know about diversity training?

    In our increasingly diverse society, organizations are constantly challenged to create environments for every employee to feel included and valued. Unfortunately, despite a company’s best efforts, many employees end up feeling excluded ­– be it due to implicit bias or explicit prejudice. In response to this challenge, many organizations look to diversity training programs to help employees understand their own biases, increase employee engagement and satisfaction, and create an environment that fosters diversity and inclusion. Indeed, as many as 67% of U.S. organizations report some use of diversity training[1], and 15% of organizations have staff dedicated to diversity and inclusion.

    There are strong motivations for the adoption of diversity training. Making advances in diversity can lend organizations visibility and status, improve talent recruitment, customer orientation, employee satisfaction, and innovation, and, more cynically, can shield organizations from expensive lawsuits. As a result, many organizations have invested heavily in this kind of training. However, recent research has suggested that diversity training may not be effective, and can, in some cases, do more harm than good. So, what does the evidence say? Should companies invest in diversity training or not?

    Recent research has suggested that diversity training may not be effective, and can, in some cases, do more harm than good.

    To answer this question, leading scholars gathered to debate the pros and cons of diversity training at a Research Roundtable on Gender and the Economy held at the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto. In the format of an Oxford-style debate, Professors Rafael Gomez (University of Toronto, Centre for Industrial Relations and Human Resources), Sonia Kang (University of Toronto, Rotman School), Eden King (Dept. of Psychology, Rice University) and Winny Shen (Dept. of Psychology, University of Waterloo) presented their research-based arguments for and against diversity training as a useful and effective tool for reducing bias and improving organizational life. The points below are a summary of the main arguments made in the debate.

    What is diversity training? Who implements diversity training?

    Diversity training is a distinct set of programs or interventions intended to reduce prejudice and bias, improve communications and inter-group relations, and increase the knowledge, skills, and motivation of employees so that they can perform more effectively in a diverse working environment. Diversity training seeks to produce a more successful organization with higher-performing employees, generate compliance to legal and ethical standards, increase employee satisfaction and retention, and support the development of a diversity of ideas.[2]

    Diversity training activities can include disseminating information on the organization’s policies and expectations, building awareness, teaching skills, motivating behavioural change, and providing employees with new experiences.[3] There are many versions of diversity training, and companies often use a combination of practices.

    Probably the most common form of diversity training these days is Implicit Bias Training. The goal is to make participants aware of bias and prejudices that may not be conscious, but nonetheless shape decisions and behavior. Implicit bias testing, such as the Implicit Association Tests provided by Project Implicit at Harvard University, reveal the gaps between our explicitly-stated and internally-held attitudes toward a variety of social groups. Training can encourage participants to develop an awareness of attitudes and beliefs that support prejudice so that alternative perspectives can be adopted.

    Over the years, many other types of diversity training programs have been developed by consultants and academics alike. Anti-Bias Training presents value-based principles and methodologies to cultivate a respect of differences that will lead to the elimination of bias. Classical Conditioning pairs images or representations of stigmatized groups with positive images and words to eliminate implicit biases held by participants. Sensitivity Training raises awareness of attitudes and behaviours that may cause harm to others. This type of training can also involve developing empathy. An example would be asking participants to write an essay from the perspective of someone different from them. Cross-Cultural Training educates participants on differences across cultures to engender an understanding of diverse motivations and perspectives. Also referred to as cultural competence or multicultural education, programs may utilize the Multicultural Awareness-Knowledge Skill Survey (MAKSS) or the Multicultural Counselling Awareness Scale (MCAS). Contact Interventions utilise direct contact between members of different groups. Also called cooperative contact, these diversity training programs can include peer-led discussion groups or guided communication training where participants from different groups interact with each other.

    What are the worries about diversity training?

    Although many firms have invested in these diversity programs, recent evidence suggests that they may not always be effective.

    • Are the results reliable? Many diversity training programs evaluate success with a self-administered survey on bias or prejudice. Changes in participants’ evaluations over time may be the result of participants learning the evaluation goals, or becoming more familiar with the questionnaire, and may not reflect actual change in prejudiced attitudes or beliefs. Research also shows that employees with more positive attitudes toward diversity are more likely to participate in non-mandatory diversity initiatives, suggesting that training programs may not reach the employees who have the most severe biases.[4]
    • Reduced diversity. Mandatory diversity training can result in strong backlash. Studies show that diversity interventions like training, testing, and grievance systems can make firms less diverse as managers resist threats to their autonomy to make decisions.[5] For example, in one study, organizations that implemented mandatory diversity training had 6% fewer black women in management positions after five years.[6]
    • Worse behaviour. Diversity training can lead to worse behaviours. A study found that ethnic minority employees stated that the behaviour of their coworkers worsened after they participated in a diversity training program. Backlash effects can occur if trainees resent being selected for diversity training and view training as punishment for prior insensitive behaviour.[7]

    Backlash effects can occur if trainees resent being selected for diversity training and view training as punishment for prior insensitive behaviour.

    • Illusion of fairness. Even the presence of diversity training alone can create the illusion that an organization is fair, and inequality is not a problem. A study found that white male participants who were told that diversity training had occurred felt women were treated more fairly, even when faced with evidence of the contrary.[8]
    • Stereotype rebound. In some cases, attempts to increase awareness reinforce stereotype norms, and participants who are instructed to avoid stereotypes enact more stereotypical behaviours and discrimination.[9] A study found that business students who participated in a diversity training where they watched a video that instructed them to supress negative stereotypes about the elderly, evaluated older job applicants more negatively.[10]

    This research suggests that diversity training may have unintended consequences for the participants, for the potential beneficiaries of the programs, and for the organizations that sponsor them. Does this mean that companies should stop doing diversity training?

    What are the possible benefits of diversity training?

    Proponents of diversity training argue that its overall impacts are positive despite the limitations to current diversity training models. A meta-analysis of hundreds of diversity training studies shows that although outliers exist, diversity training has had real and significant positive effects overall.[11]

    • Real outcomes in skills, knowledge and learning: The average or typical diversity-training program produces significant positive effects on knowledge (learning), acquisition of diversity skills, and improvements to diversity-related motivation and attitudes. For example, people attending a typical training program would be 64% more likely to experience an increase in their knowledge or skills around diversity than someone who does not attend that program.[12]
    • Effects on behaviour. Research indicates that diversity training may have only a small direct influence on attitudes, both implicit and explicit; however, changes in knowledge and behaviour may lead to larger changes in attitudes over time. For example, someone might learn how to communicate more effectively with people different from them, and after many interactions with others, may develop an improved attitude toward diverse groups.[13]
    • Create a culture of change. Another significant value of diversity training is that it can help to cultivate a growth mindset regarding the malleability of diversity-related behaviours. Goal-setting theory tells us that building awareness through diversity training can signal that diversity is an important issue to an organization and set expectations for employees. Research shows that those who set positive behavioural goals immediately after attending training sessions exhibit more diversity-supportive behaviours post-training.[14]

    Goal-setting theory tells us that building awareness through diversity training can signal that diversity is an important issue to an organization and set expectations for employees.

    • Unlock the creative potential of teams. People have long argued that diverse teams can be a source of creativity and innovation. However, we know that diversity can also lead to conflict or difficulties in communicating. Research shows that for teams to benefit from diversity, team members need to take the perspectives of those who are different from them. Diversity training can be the intervention that enhances perspective-taking and helps teams reach their creative potential.[15]

    Proponents of diversity training point out that these benefits have been realized even when many of the programs have been poorly implemented. Further, the research evidence to date is largely in direct contrast to the prevalent “myth” that diversity training is ineffective, which may be largely the result of a vocal, but small, minority of individuals who do not like such training programs. One might anticipate that these benefits would further increase if companies were using research-informed best practices.

    If you are going to do diversity training, how to do it right.

    There is a tremendous upside for organizations if they can get diversity – and more importantly – inclusion right. But, inclusion requires more than just putting diverse people together. Research shows that the key to high performing diverse groups is intervention to help people overcome diversity challenges. Here are some guidelines to avoid pitfalls and ensure maximum impact:

    • Take a behavioural approach. We know from research on dieting, exercise, work addiction, and other issues, that it is very hard to turn attitudes into behaviours. For diversity training to be successful, it needs to make a connection to behaviour. Research shows that the overall effect of behaviour-based training has a significantly higher impact than diversity training that focuses only on awareness.[16] Effective diversity training needs to supply behavioural alternatives so participants have a repertoire of potential actions in place when confronted with difficult scenarios, such as a colleague making sexist or racist jokes in the workplace.
    • Use data. Organizations must think like scientists: collecting, analyzing, and disseminating data to inform how they structure and deliver diversity initiatives. Having clear measurements of the organizations’ progress towards goals can help them avoid pitfalls like the illusion of fairness, which happens when people assume an organization is fair simply because it signals that it is fair. Letting the data tell the story can motivate change.
    • Host your training in an educational setting. Research shows that participants are more likely to enjoy diversity training that takes place in an educational setting than within their organization. It signals that there is something new to be learned and opens up people’s minds to thinking differently.[17]
    • Make it voluntary. Research shows that mandatory diversity programs have negative or no effects. Individuals have strong negative reactions to threats to personal autonomy and may resent being selected for training. In contrast to mandatory training, voluntary training, and other voluntary approaches such as mentoring and assigning diversity managers have strong, positive effects. Creating a sense of ownership, autonomy, and pride can lead to better outcomes and less backlash.[18] [19]
    • Create new norms. The backlash to diversity training shows us that imposing values on people in a mandatory setting is ineffective. Instead, stakeholders should decide together what the norms should be. Once in place, those in positions of authority need to set the example through their own behaviour. If new behavioural norms are established, organizations can capitalize on the human desire to fit in.[20]
    • Keep the focus on inequality. In the service of making training more palatable, there may be a temptation to use diversity as a blanket term for difference. The risk is that the training does not help intervene on the real sources of inequality in organizations. Calling attention to inequality and privilege is more effective than a broad-brush treatment of diversity. Research shows that diversity training that focuses on specific aspects of diversity and their intersections (e.g., gender, race, sexual orientation, etc.) is more effective than those that use a broad approach.[21]

    Calling attention to inequality and privilege is more effective than a broad-brush treatment of diversity.

    • Take the long view. Most diversity training programs are not very long, taking place over only a day or two. Numerous studies show positive effects when training sessions are spread out over multiple weeks. In addition, each training session should be substantial in length so that people have time to mull over the issues, move beyond surface impressions, and have the opportunity to practice new skills. Research supports a time-frame of 4.5-6 hours as having the greatest impact on changing attitudes towards diversity.[22]
    • Integrate with other policies and programs. Integrated diversity training programs (when there are other diversity initiatives in the environment – like mentoring programs) are more effective than standalone diversity training programs. Presence of diversity training, in concert with other diversity practices and policies, may help demonstrate an organization’s sincerity and commitment to diversity.

    What are the alternatives to training?

    Of course, diversity training is not the be-all-and-end-all of enhancing inclusiveness in organizations. It is tempting to think that a specific intervention such as training would be able to fix the challenges of inequality in organizations, but, even at its most effective, there are other types of interventions that can serve as important complements to training or perhaps more practical substitutes for training in certain contexts.

    • Review hiring practices. Organizations can look at how job postings are framed or worded. Is the language and positioning used attracting a diverse audience? Is the organization getting a diverse slate of candidates? How is the organization making hiring decisions? For example, research shows that determining hiring criteria in advance of seeing the hiring slate can reduce gender discrimination in the hiring process.[23]
    • Skills-based assessments. When it comes to recruiting and promotion, some organizations are turning to skills-based assessments to counteract bias. For example, applicants for a coding position may be asked to code a program and submit it, rather than submitting their traditional application package. Employees want to know who can actually do the job, not whose credentials suggest that they should be able to. However, research suggests that the application of skill tests needs to be uniform to be effective. Currently, when it comes to race, white candidates are more likely to be exempted from testing, while minority candidates are more likely to have skill test results used as a reason for not being hired or promoted.[24]
    • Mentoring and sponsorship programs. Organizations can investigate if diverse employees are supported in the talent pipeline. Is key talent from diverse populations being lost because the culture is not supportive or inclusive? Are diverse candidates promoted? Organizations can add mentoring and sponsorship elements to talent management practices to ensure diverse employees are receiving visibility and support. Research shows that structuring accountability into these programs makes them significantly more effective.[25]
    • Diversity committees or task forces. A task force or committee comprised of employees from multiple departments and managerial levels can be charged with overseeing diversity initiatives and monitoring progress. While more than 60% of large organizations collect measurements and metrics on diversity-related practices, only 34% have a method in place for measuring the impact of those practices. Only 7% of organizations conduct analysis to determine a return on investment for diversity initiatives.[26] An important role of leadership is to measure, monitor, and hold people accountable for progress.

    While more than 60% of large organizations collect measurements and metrics on diversity-related practices, only 34% have a method in place for measuring the impact of those practices.

    In conclusion, people are right to raise alarms about the potential unintended consequences of diversity training. The press today is filled with stories of backlash in organizations to an increased attention to diversity and inclusion. On the other hand, it is clear that there is no turning back: the workforce is only becoming more diverse and companies that want to attract and retain excellent talent will want to create the most inclusive environment possible. So, where does that leave us? Our Oxford-style debate highlighted best practices for training programs and complementary activities that any organization could adopt as they move forward. The key to understanding the usefulness of diversity training is to see how it creates an environment in which the benefits of diversity can be cultivated.

    Suggested Reading List

    Dobbin, F., & Kalev, A. (2016, July & Aug.). Why Diversity Programs Fail. Harvard Business Review, 52-60.

    Lindsey, A., King, E., Membere, A. & Cheung, H. K. (2017, July). Two Types of Diversity Training That Really Work. Harvard Business Review.

    Emerson, J. (2018). Don’t Give Up on Unconscious Bias Training – Make it Better. Harvard Business Review.

    Williams, M. (2018). Diversity Isn’t a Numbers Game. Harvard Business Review.

    References

    [1] Kulik, C.T., & Roberson, L. (2008). Common Goals and Golden Opportunities: Evaluations of Diversity Education in Academic and Organizational Settings. Academy Of Management Learning & Education, 7(3), 309-331.

    [2] Phillips, B.N., Deiches, J., Morrison, B. et al. (2016). Disability Diversity Training in the Workplace: Systematic Review and Future Directions. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 26, 264-275.

    [3] Kulik, C.T., & Roberson, L. (2008). Common Goals and Golden Opportunities: Evaluations of Diversity Education in Academic and Organizational Settings. Academy Of Management Learning & Education, 7(3), 309-331.

    [4] Paluck, E.L., & Green, D. (2009). Prejudice Reduction: What Works? A Review and Assessment of Research and Practice. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 339-367.

    [5] Dobbin, F., & Kalev, A. (2016, July & Aug.). Why Diversity Programs Fail. Harvard Business Review, 52-60.

    [6] Kalev, A., Kelly, E., & Dobbin, F. (2006). Best Practices or Best Guesses? Assessing the Efficacy of Corporate Affirmative Action and Diversity Policies. American Sociological Review, 71(4), 589-617.

    [7] Sanchez, J., & Medkik, N. (2004). The Effects of Diversity Awareness Training on Differential Treatment. Group & Organization Management, 29(4), 517–536.

    [8] Kaiser, C. R., Major, B., Jurcevic, I., Dover, T. L., Brady, L. M., & Shapiro, J. R. (2013). Presumed fair: Ironic effects of organizational diversity structures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(3), 504-519.

    [9] Macrae, C. N., Bodenhausen, G. V., Milne, A. B., & Jetten, J. (1994). Out of mind but back in sight: Stereotypes on the rebound. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(5), 808-817.

    [10] Kulik CT, Perry EL, & Bourhis AC. (2000). Ironic evaluation processes: effects of thought suppression on evaluations of older job applicants. Journal of Organizational Behaviour. 21, 689–71.

    [11] Bezrukova, K., Spell, C.S., Perry, J., & Jehn, K. (2016). A meta-analytical integration of over 40 years of research on diversity training evaluation. Psychological Bulletin, 142(11), 1227–1274.

    [12] Bezrukova, K., Spell, C.S., Perry, J., & Jehn, K. (2016). A meta-analytical integration of over 40 years of research on diversity training evaluation. Psychological Bulletin, 142(11), 1227–1274.

    [13] Kalinoski, Z.T., Steele-Johnson, D., Peyton, E.J., Leas, K.A., Steinke, J., & Bowing, N.A. (2013). A meta-analytic evaluation of diversity training outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 34(8), 1076-104.

    [14] Madera, J.M., King, EB, & Hebl, M.R. (2013). Enhancing the effects of sexual orientation diversity training: the effects of setting goals and training mentors on attitudes and behaviours. Journal of Business Psychology, 28 (1), 79-91.

    [15] Hoever, I., van Knippenberg, D., van Ginkel, W., & Barkema, H. (2012). Fostering team creativity: perspective taking as key to unlocking diversity’s potential. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(5), 982–996.

    [16] Bezrukova, K., Spell, C.S., Perry, J., & Jehn, K. (2016). A meta-analytical integration of over 40 years of research on diversity training evaluation. Psychological Bulletin, 142(11), 1227–1274.

    [17] Bezrukova, K., Spell, C.S., Perry, J., & Jehn, K. (2016). A meta-analytical integration of over 40 years of research on diversity training evaluation. Psychological Bulletin, 142(11), 1227–1274.

    [19] Legault, L., Gutsell, J. and Inzlicht, M. (2011). Ironic Effects of Antiprejudice Messages. Psychological Science, 22(12), pp. 1472-1477.

    [20] Dobbin, F., & Kalev, A. (2016, July & Aug.). Why Diversity Programs Fail. Harvard Business Review, 52-60.

    [21] Kalinoski, Z.T., Steele-Johnson, D., Peyton, E.J., Leas, K.A., Steinke, J., & Bowing, N.A. (2013). A meta-analytic evaluation of diversity training outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 34(8), 1076-104.

    [22] Phillips, B.N., Deiches, J., Morrison, B. et al. (2016). Disability Diversity Training in the Workplace: Systematic Review and Future Directions. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 26, 264-275. Bezrukova, K., Spell, C.S., Perry, J., & Jehn, K. (2016). A meta-analytical integration of over 40 years of research on diversity training evaluation. Psychological Bulletin, 142(11), 1227–1274.

    [23] Uhlmann, E. L., & Cohen, G. L. (2005). Constructed Criteria: Redefining Merit to Justify Discrimination. Psychological Science, 16(6), 474-480.

    [24] Dobbin, F., & Kalev, A. (2016, July & Aug.). Why Diversity Programs Fail. Harvard Business Review, 52-60.

    [25] Kalev, A., Kelly, E., & Dobbin, F. (2006). Best Practices or Best Guesses? Assessing the Efficacy of Corporate Affirmative Action and Diversity Policies. American Sociological Review, 71(4), 589-617.

    [26] Scanlan, S. (2013). SHRM Survey Findings: Diversity and Inclusion. Alexandria, VA: Society for Human Resource Management.

    [/fusion_text][fusion_separator style_type=”none” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” sep_color=”” top_margin=”20″ bottom_margin=”20″ border_size=”” icon=”” icon_circle=”” icon_circle_color=”” width=”” alignment=”center” /][fusion_button link=”https://www.gendereconomy.org/category/research-overviews/” text_transform=”” title=”” target=”_blank” link_attributes=”” alignment=”” modal=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” color=”custom” button_gradient_top_color=”#62bd19″ button_gradient_bottom_color=”#62bd19″ button_gradient_top_color_hover=”#00c2e2″ button_gradient_bottom_color_hover=”#00c2e2″ accent_color=”” accent_hover_color=”” type=”” bevel_color=”” border_width=”” size=”” stretch=”yes” shape=”” icon=”” icon_position=”left” icon_divider=”no” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=””]See more research overviews[/fusion_button][fusion_separator style_type=”none” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” sep_color=”” top_margin=”20″ bottom_margin=”20″ border_size=”” icon=”” icon_circle=”” icon_circle_color=”” width=”” alignment=”center” /][fusion_recent_posts layout=”default” picture_size=”fixed” hover_type=”none” columns=”3″ number_posts=”3″ offset=”0″ pull_by=”category” cat_slug=”research-overviews” exclude_cats=”” tag_slug=”” exclude_tags=”” thumbnail=”yes” title=”yes” meta=”no” meta_author=”no” meta_categories=”no” meta_date=”yes” meta_comments=”yes” meta_tags=”no” content_alignment=”” excerpt=”no” excerpt_length=”35″ strip_html=”yes” scrolling=”no” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” /][/fusion_builder_column][fusion_builder_column type=”1_4″ layout=”1_4″ spacing=”” center_content=”no” hover_type=”none” link=”” min_height=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”left top” background_repeat=”no-repeat” border_size=”0″ border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” last=”no”][fusion_title hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”briefsummary” id=”” content_align=”left” size=”3″ font_size=”” line_height=”” letter_spacing=”” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” text_color=”” style_type=”none” sep_color=””]

    Research brief prepared by

    Alyson Colón

    Published

    January 15, 2018

    [/fusion_title][fusion_widget_area name=”avada-custom-sidebar-researchbriefsidebar” title_size=”” title_color=”” background_color=”” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” /][/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]

  • The debate about quotas

    The debate about quotas

    [fusion_builder_container admin_label=”” hundred_percent=”no” equal_height_columns=”no” menu_anchor=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”center center” background_repeat=”no-repeat” fade=”no” background_parallax=”none” enable_mobile=”no” parallax_speed=”0.3″ video_mp4=”” video_webm=”” video_ogv=”” video_url=”” video_aspect_ratio=”16:9″ video_loop=”yes” video_mute=”yes” video_preview_image=”” border_size=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” margin_top=”20″ margin_bottom=”” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=””][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=”3_4″ layout=”3_4″ spacing=”” center_content=”no” hover_type=”none” link=”” min_height=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”left top” background_repeat=”no-repeat” border_size=”0″ border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” last=”no”][fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_spacing=”” rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=””]

    Download the infographic. View the video explainer.

    The gender equality challenge

    Policy makers and organizations have been working toward achieving gender diversity for many decades, but progress has been slow and is perhaps even stagnating. Only 5% of the 500 CEOs on the 2016 Fortune 500 list are women, a mere 27 out of 500. Men are two to three times more likely to hold senior management positions, a figure that has stagnated for almost 30 years despite widespread efforts to remedy this imbalance. Employers still lean toward hiring men over women who have similar qualifications, and the gender wage gap persists in numerous occupations. In Canada, despite implementation of a “comply or explain” disclosure regime to facilitate gender diversity on boards of directors, 45% of companies still have no women on their boards.1 Notwithstanding extensive research on the topic and widespread diversity initiatives, gender representation remains a persistent problem in corporate leadership and in the workforce.

    Only 5% of the 500 CEOs on the 2016 Fortune 500 list are women, a mere 27 out of 500.

    Many have believed that it would be enough to develop “gender blind” or “gender neutral” management practices. The argument has been, if employers introduce structures and systems that focus on the objective merit of employees and job candidates, they should be able to overcome discrimination based on implicit or explicit biases. Yet, these systems seem not to have helped organizations make enough progress. Even some gender aware policies, such as requirements to fill candidate pools with underrepresented minorities without setting hard quotas, have failed to solve the key problem of female representation. At the rate we are going in North America, achieving 30% female representation on boards of directors, for example, would require at least 30 years.

    Achieving 30% female representation on boards of directors would require at least 30 years.

    Because of this sluggish progress toward gender equality, organizations and policy makers are increasingly considering the possibility of implementing quotas, particularly at the level of board directors, to achieve gender parity. Quotas, it is argued, would jump start the process of achieving equal representation. Yet, the idea of imposing quotas on employers – even only at the level of the board of directors – has been met with resistance. As a result, quotas have remained shrouded in controversy about their expected benefits and potential pitfalls.

    Recently, leading scholars gathered to debate this question during the Gender and the Economy Research Roundtable held at the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto. In the format of an Oxford-style debate, Professors Tiziana Casciaro (University of Toronto, Rotman School), Aaron Dhir (Osgoode Hall Law School, York University), Lisa Leslie (NYU Stern School) and Nico Lacetera (University of Toronto, Institute for Management and Innovation; National Bureau of Economic Research) presented their research-based arguments for and against quotas as an important and useful tool for achieving gender equality in the workforce. The points below are a summary of the main arguments made in the debate.

    Why quotas might not work

    Research suggests that there might be a number of reasons for being concerned about the effect of quotas.

    • Illegal or perceived as unjust. In some jurisdictions, quotas may violate legislation. In the United States, for example, constitutional law would likely present insurmountable obstacles to the promulgation of a quota-based regime. Even where quotas are legal, people may interpret quotas as a violation of perceptions of justice at the individual level, even if they are creating more fairness in terms of gender distribution at the societal level.2 From a psychological perspective, any gain for one group (in this case, women) is often perceived as a loss for another group (in this case, men), leading men potentially to perceive quotas as unfair.3
    • Potential stigma. One risk is that those women who are included in boards due to the imposition of quotas might be stigmatized. There is a possibility that they will be seen as less qualified and only on the board because of the quotas. This may hurt their ability to contribute to board discussions and undermine their effectiveness. This is particularly true if women are added to boards at token levels. Evidence suggests that a single woman on a board will likely be marginalized or delegitimized.4

    When a woman is the only female member on a board, she will likely be marginalized or delegitimized

    • Reduced employee engagement. Perceptions of unfairness can trigger unintended negative consequences. Employers who impose quotas may become less attractive to male job applicants. Quotas may also lead to low engagement and negative job attitudes among male employees. Furthermore, this perception of unfairness may cause men to become less supportive of diversity policies than they were prior to implementing quotas.
    • Reduced support for diversity initiatives. Research has long established that people can be motivated by intrinsic (personal) or extrinsic (externally provided) rewards. Quotas act as an extrinsic motivator because they are a rule imposed externally that forces managers to behave in a certain way. Psychological research has consistently shown that when someone else forces or rewards people for doing something, they become less motivated about the task: they attribute their motivation to coercion. In the case of quotas, even if employees personally believe in working toward gender diversity, imposed quotas can make them believe that they only care about diversity because the company wants them to, not because they do personally. Indeed, research suggests that external prompts, such as mandatory diversity training or grievance systems, are associated with negative impacts on the representation of women.5

    Psychological research has consistently shown that when someone else forces or rewards people for doing something, they become less motivated about the task

    • No trickle down. Much of the conversation about quotas has focused on assuring that more women are represented on corporate boards of directors. This has the effect of democratizing access to opportunities in an important area of leadership. However, there is evidence that such quotas fail to lead to broader organizational impacts. For example, the quotas implemented in Norway did result in women holding 40% of board seats, but the positive effects in the boardrooms did not trickle down to lower levels in companies. A study showed that the benefits were strictly limited to the board level, and underrepresentation and wage disparities persisted at all other levels.6 For those who have argued that greater proportions of women on boards are correlated with performance, little evidence was found in Norway to support this claim.7 8 9
    • Failure to address underlying discrimination. Evidence from Norway suggests that quotas may not change anything about the deeper-rooted problem. For example, many Norwegian companies delisted from the stock exchange at the time quotas were imposed (though some of this may have been due to a contemporaneous modification in rules that changed the requirement that financial firms had to be public). In the early days of the quota implementation, a small group of women called the “golden skirts” came to hold several board positions at different organizations. Quotas merely require a certain number of women to be present in a workplace, and this imposed number can distort the real purposes for promoting gender parity and diversity.

    Why quotas could work

    Yet, other evidence suggests that concerns about the negative impacts of quotas may be overblown.

    • Fears not realized. In interviews of board members in the US and Europe, it appeared that there is hostility toward quotas in countries that don’t have them and enthusiasm for quotas in countries that do have them.10 In other words, only those who were unfamiliar with quotas thought they were a bad thing. Indeed, when examining the lived experiences of board members in Norway, there was a strong narrative of change.11 While directors in the Norwegian companies had initially strongly opposed quotas, once quotas were imposed by the government, the directors eventually changed their minds. According to these directors, their fears were unfounded, and, after a period of transition, they felt that the increased representation of women on boards actually improved overall governance and decision making. One analogy that some have made is to that of banning smoking in restaurants and bars. These policies – initially vehemently opposed by business establishments as risking financial losses – now are widely accepted and favourably viewed as a public good by almost everyone.

    There is hostility toward quotas in countries that don’t have them and enthusiasm for quotas in countries that do have them

    • No pipeline problem. An initial question about imposing quotas is always: where will we find the women? A survey of more than 1,000 board members found that men attributed the existing imbalance to a lack of women in the candidate pools, whereas women explained it as a function of established closed male networks and biases. While in Norway, there was an initial “golden skirt” effect where a few women held many seats, after a few years this problem resolved itself and now there are many different women represented on the country’s boards of directors. The imposition of quotas led boards to search more creatively and expansively for board members – beyond their Rolodexes – and this dramatically increased the candidate pool.
    • No stigma. Evidence from the Norwegian experience suggests that few female board members who had been beneficiaries of the quotas reported feeling stigmatized or isolated. This was in part because with a 40% quota, women achieved a critical mass on every board. At 40% representation, a group is no longer marginalized. Simply having enough women is a means for countering the potential negative stigma, while adding only one or two women leads to tokenization and delegitimization.

    With a 40% quota, women achieved a critical mass on every board

    • Substantial Positive effects. Research suggests that insisting on a critical mass of women on boards can lead to several benefits in terms of board governance, including more robust deliberation, disruption of groupthink, more effective risk management, higher quality monitoring of management, and more systematic work.12 Indeed, because searches for women board members often lead to candidates who may not fit the typical profile, women end up bringing more diverse experience in a wider variety of functional areas than men – often adding skills in the areas of HR, government relations, and marketing that might have been lacking.13 The new women board members introduced new viewpoints not previously considered.

    The new women board members introduced new viewpoints not previously considered.

    • A useful shock to the system. As ample research has established, gender biases are built into many organizational systems and human decision making processes. Psychological research shows that we are susceptible to unconscious biases and stereotypes. Additionally, research tells us that we form networks with others who are socially similar to ourselves. As a whole, these unconscious processes are deeply embedded in individuals and organizational systems, and it is unrealistic to expect that these will disappear without an abrupt external shock. Under the Canadian “comply or explain” approach to board diversity, the primary explanation offered by companies who do not adopt gender targets is that they recruit “based on merit.”14 However, research shows that supposedly meritocratic systems are as susceptible to these biases as other systems (and perhaps even more).15 Thus, quotas provide a stringent and structured framework to overcome these unconscious biases such that there is less room for unintended discrimination to emerge.

    Next steps

    We can glean advice from this debate about what mistakes and pitfalls to avoid when enforcing quotas – or more broadly, affirmative action programs – and what some alternatives to this form of action may be.

    If you do impose quotas, how can you avoid the pitfalls?

    The debated suggested that quotas can be very effective and even well-received if implemented with care. Some actions include:

    • Change the narrative. There is evidence that how affirmative action plans are framed matters. In particular, when decision makers justify an affirmative action (quota) plan because of the need to remedy past discrimination or the desire to increase diversity, they reduce negative reactions to the policy. Alternatively, just saying that a certain group is underrepresented increases negative reactions.16
    • Establish a critical mass. A quota of 20% women is unlikely to perpetuate any positive change and will instead incur negative reactions. As shown in interviews with female directors in Norway, marginalization becomes difficult when 40% of the workforce are women. This is a potential difficulty with the “comply or explain” approach. It may lead boards to make incremental progress, adding one woman at a time. Where there is low representation, then the risks of stigmatization and tokenism increase.

    As shown in interviews with female directors in Norway, marginalization becomes difficult when 40% of the board members are women.

    • Expand your search. To avoid the problem of having the same small group of women getting appointed to various different boards or positions – termed “golden skirts” in Norway – employers should be actively seeking and reaching out to women so they have a large qualified pool from which they can extract large numbers of qualified women.
    • Expand your definition of the ideal candidate. There are competent and qualified women out there, but companies must look beyond their typical circle of recruitment and reach out. Research has shown that people have prototypes about the ideal worker, or the ideal leader, which is typically male. Recruiters need to expand their idea of an ideal candidate beyond the male prototype and create a large pool of qualified female candidates.
    • Provide support to facilitate quota implementation. Simply imposing a quota is not enough, and there should be support in the form of policies to facilitate quotas. For example, parental leave policies and work re-entry programs for both men and women should be in place to avoid potential pitfalls and help smooth out the process.
    • Expect some discomfort. Moving to quotas may not be a smooth process. Even in Norway, where there is general satisfaction with quotas now, there was a period of transition. Organizational change is never easy, but it is the price to pay for the benefits.

    If you don’t use quotas, how can you make enough progress?17 18

    The debate suggested some tools for making change without using quotas. These include:

    • Engage in targeted recruiting. Reach out and find women to apply for jobs and offer them resources for training, but do not impose a required number of women to be hired. Research shows that the larger number of women in your candidate pool, the higher the chance you will hire a woman. Recent research has shown that when you have just one woman in the finalist candidate pool, there is statistically no chance that she will be hired.19

    The larger number of women in your candidate pool, the higher the chance you will hire a woman

    • Provide voluntary opportunities for diversity training. Voluntary diversity training for managers are programs where they can voluntarily sign up for training sessions that teach them the benefits of diversity and how to reduce unconscious bias. These programs, when voluntary, have been shown through research to increase diversity efforts and beliefs, and increase the number of women and minorities hired.
    • Appoint diversity managers. Designating specific roles dedicated to creating and sustaining diversity at the workplace will signal that the organization is committed to diversity and will create more awareness about diversity issues. Research has also shown that appointing diversity managers increases social accountability, or the desire to look more fair-minded for other managers, and increases the hiring rate of women and other minorities.
    • Create corporate diversity task forces. Effective task forces include department heads and other line executives as well as members of underrepresented groups. Task forces can analyze information on diversity for the whole company, for business units, and for departments to figure out what needs attention and then develop action plans for change. These task forces also help promote social accountability of the organization as a whole.
    • Hold people accountable. One form of accountability is through transparency, as research shows that people monitor their own biases when they expect that others will see what decisions they make. A second form of accountability is through external monitoring, in which achieving diversity targets is part of a person’s compensation and reward system.

    People monitor their own biases when they expect that others will see what decisions they make.

    The debate helps bring research-based evidence to change the conversation about quotas.

    Suggested reading list for more information

    Dhir, Aaron A. Challenging boardroom homogeneity: Corporate law, governance, and diversity. Cambridge University Press, 2015.

    Dhir, Aaron A. “What Norway Can Teach the U.S. About Getting More Women Into Boardrooms.” The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 4 May 2015.

    Dobbin, Frank, and Alexandra Kalev. “Why Diversity Programs Fail.” Harvard Business Review. Harvard Business Publishing, Aug. 2016.

    Johnson, Stefanie K., David R. Hekman, and Elsa T. Chan. “If There’s Only One Woman in Your Candidate Pool, There’s Statistically No Chance She’ll Be Hired.” Harvard Business Review. Harvard Business Publishing, 26 Apr. 2016.

    Kaplan, Sarah (2015). “Meritocracy: From Myth to Reality.” Rotman Magazine (Spring: 48-53)

    Wiersema, Margarethe, and Marie Louise Mors. “What Board Directors Really Think of Gender Quotas.” Harvard Business Review. Harvard Business Press, 14 Nov. 2016.

    References cited in summary

    1 CSA Multilateral Staff Notice 58-308 Staff Review of Women on Boards and in Executive Officer Positions – Compliance with NI 58-101 Disclosure of Corporate Governance Practices, September 28, 2016

    2 Lowery, B. S., Unzueta, M. M., Knowles, E. D., & Goff, P. A. (2006). Concern for the in-group and opposition to affirmative action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 961-974.

    3 Shteynberg, G., Leslie, L. M., Knight, A. P., & Mayer, D. M. (2011). But affirmative action hurts us! Race-related beliefs shape perceptions of White disadvantage and policy unfairness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115, 1-12.

    4 Leslie, L. M., Mayer, D. M., & Kravitz, D. A. (2014). The stigma of affirmative action: A stereotyping-based theory and meta-analytic test of the consequences for performance. Academy of Management Journal, 57, 964-989.

    5 Dobbin, F., Schrage, D., & Kalev, A. (2015). Rage against the Iron Cage: The Varied Effects of Bureaucratic Personnel Reforms on Diversity. American Sociological Review.

    6 Bertrand, M., Black, S. E., Jensen, S., & Lleras-Muney, A. (2014). Breaking the glass ceiling? The effect of board quotas on female labor market outcomes in Norway (No. w20256). National Bureau of Economic Research.

    7 Adams, R. B., & Ferreira, D. (2009). Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and performance. Journal of Financial Economics, 94, 291-309.

    8 Ahern, K. R., & Dittmar, A. K. (2012). The changing of the boards: The impact on firm valuation of mandated female board representation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 127, 137-197.

    9 Matsa, D. A., & Miller, A. R. (2013). A female style in corporate leadership? Evidence from quotas. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 5, 136-69.

    10 Wiersema, Margarethe, and Marie Louise Mors. “What Board Directors Really Think of Gender Quotas.” Harvard Business Review. Harvard Business Press, 14 Nov. 2016.

    11 Dhir, Aaron A. Challenging boardroom homogeneity: Corporate law, governance, and diversity. Cambridge University Press, 2015.

    12 Dhir, Aaron A. Challenging boardroom homogeneity: Corporate law, governance, and diversity. Cambridge University Press, 2015.

    13 Kim, Daehyun & Laura Starks, Gender Diversity on Corporate Boards: Do Women Contribute Unique Skills? American Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings, 106(5): 267-27

    14 CSA Multilateral Staff Notice 58-308 Staff Review of Women on Boards and in Executive Officer Positions – Compliance with NI 58-101 Disclosure of Corporate Governance Practices, September 28, 2016, p. 6.

    15 Kaplan, Sarah (2015). Meritocracy: From Myth to Reality. Rotman Magazine (Spring: 48-53)

    16 Harrison, D. A., Kravitz, D. A., Mayer, D. M., Leslie, L. M., & Lev-Arey, D. (2006). Understanding attitudes toward affirmative action programs in employment: Summary and meta-analysis of 35 years of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1013-1036.

    17 Dobbin, Frank, and Alexandra Kalev. “Why Diversity Programs Fail.” Harvard Business Review. Harvard Business Publishing, Aug. 2016.

    8 Dobbin, F., Schrage, D., & Kalev, A. (2015). Rage against the Iron Cage: The Varied Effects of Bureaucratic Personnel Reforms on Diversity. American Sociological Review.

    19 Johnson, Stefanie K., David R. Hekman, and Elsa T. Chan. “If There’s Only One Woman in Your Candidate Pool, There’s Statistically No Chance She’ll Be Hired.” Harvard Business Review. Harvard Business Publishing, 26 Apr. 2016.[/fusion_text][fusion_separator style_type=”none” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” sep_color=”” top_margin=”20″ bottom_margin=”20″ border_size=”” icon=”” icon_circle=”” icon_circle_color=”” width=”” alignment=”center” /][fusion_button link=”https://www.gendereconomy.org/category/research-overviews/” text_transform=”” title=”” target=”_blank” link_attributes=”” alignment=”” modal=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” color=”custom” button_gradient_top_color=”#62bd19″ button_gradient_bottom_color=”#62bd19″ button_gradient_top_color_hover=”#00c2e2″ button_gradient_bottom_color_hover=”#00c2e2″ accent_color=”” accent_hover_color=”” type=”” bevel_color=”” border_width=”” size=”” stretch=”yes” shape=”” icon=”” icon_position=”left” icon_divider=”no” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=””]See more research overviews[/fusion_button][fusion_separator style_type=”none” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” sep_color=”” top_margin=”20″ bottom_margin=”20″ border_size=”” icon=”” icon_circle=”” icon_circle_color=”” width=”” alignment=”center” /][fusion_recent_posts layout=”default” picture_size=”fixed” hover_type=”none” columns=”3″ number_posts=”3″ offset=”0″ pull_by=”category” cat_slug=”research-overviews” exclude_cats=”” tag_slug=”” exclude_tags=”” thumbnail=”yes” title=”yes” meta=”no” meta_author=”no” meta_categories=”no” meta_date=”yes” meta_comments=”yes” meta_tags=”no” content_alignment=”” excerpt=”no” excerpt_length=”35″ strip_html=”yes” scrolling=”no” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” /][/fusion_builder_column][fusion_builder_column type=”1_4″ layout=”1_4″ spacing=”” center_content=”no” hover_type=”none” link=”” min_height=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”left top” background_repeat=”no-repeat” border_size=”0″ border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” last=”no”][fusion_title hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”briefsummary” id=”” content_align=”left” size=”3″ font_size=”” line_height=”” letter_spacing=”” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” text_color=”” style_type=”none” sep_color=””]

    Research brief prepared by

    Joyce He and Sarah Kaplan

    Published

    October 26, 2017

    [/fusion_title][fusion_widget_area name=”avada-custom-sidebar-researchbriefsidebar” title_size=”” title_color=”” background_color=”” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” /][/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]

  • Gender budgeting: A tool for achieving equality

    Gender budgeting: A tool for achieving equality

    [fusion_builder_container admin_label=”” hundred_percent=”no” equal_height_columns=”no” menu_anchor=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”center center” background_repeat=”no-repeat” fade=”no” background_parallax=”none” enable_mobile=”no” parallax_speed=”0.3″ video_mp4=”” video_webm=”” video_ogv=”” video_url=”” video_aspect_ratio=”16:9″ video_loop=”yes” video_mute=”yes” video_preview_image=”” border_size=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” margin_top=”20″ margin_bottom=”” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=””][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=”3_4″ layout=”3_4″ spacing=”” center_content=”no” hover_type=”none” link=”” min_height=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”left top” background_repeat=”no-repeat” border_size=”0″ border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” last=”no”][fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_spacing=”” rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” class=”” id=””]

    Download the infographic.  View the video explainer.

    In a context of widening social and economic inequalities, governments can use budgets as tools to achieve social justice objectives concurrently with economic objectives. “Gender budgeting” is one such approach and was the topic of an April 2017 discussion and debate at a workshop co-hosted by the Gender Budget Lab @ York and the Rotman School of Management’s Institute for Gender and the Economy at the University of Toronto. The event featured keynote speakers Diane Elson, Emeritus Professor, University of Essex and Former Chair of the UK Women’s Budget Group and Janet Stotsky, an economist with the International Monetary Fund. Other participating scholars and professionals included: Isabella Bakker, Barbara Cameron, Lisa Phillips, and Brenda Spotton Visano from the Gender Budget Lab @ York, Kerry Rittich from the University of Toronto Faculty of Law, Diana Sarosi of Oxfam Canada, Armine Yalnizyan of CBC Radio Business, and Sarah Kaplan, founder of the Institute for Gender and Economy. The points below summarize the main themes and takeaways from our discussions.

    What is gender budgeting?

    Gender budgeting is a way for governments and non-governmental organizations to promote gender equality using administrative and fiscal policy.

    It involves understanding the differences in a budget’s impact on men and women and subsequently creating policies to remedy inequalities. For example, an analysis by the UK Women’s Budget Group showed that the cumulative impact of changes in taxes and benefits led to decreased income for women at all levels of wealth and only created benefits for men in the top 10 percent, and that this effect was compounded when considering race as well as gender. Some people might object to this analysis, saying that it is not about any kind of intentional discrimination and that “it just happens to work out that way” or “it is just because of demographics.” However, gender budgeting aims at uncovering the often-unintended outcomes that increase inequality in society. For example, in Canada’s recent budget, analysis suggests that the new caregiver credit will actually benefit men overall more than women because a beneficiary has to have a market income in order to gain the tax credit.

    The aim of gender budgeting is to build a process at national and subnational levels that produce gender-sensitive budgets. An example of the gender budgeting process would be to analyze the ways in which cutting funding for child care services may disproportionately impact women who tend to provide more unpaid labour at home and may reduce productivity (if women are forced to abandon paid work if childcare is not funded).

    Why does gender budgeting create value?

    By applying a gender lens to budgets, governments can understand the different needs of their constituents and plan, execute and monitor expenditures and revenues more effectively.

    This method of policy intervention helps governments raise and allocate public money toward those in need, focusing on the plights of marginalized communities. Gender budgeting is not necessarily a “zero sum game.” Applying a gender lens to budgets is often positively correlated to economic outcomes. In Austria, for example, gender budgeting resulted in a reform that increased workforce participation and productivity: the income tax was amended to reduce effective taxation on secondary earners, encouraging greater female labor force participation.

    How does gender budgeting work?

    There are two major levers governments can pull in gender budgeting – tax measures (such as tax-advantaged savings plans) and direct expenditures (such as welfare, childcare, old age support). Both should be analyzed through a gender lens. There are no “rules” with regard to the best way to implement gender budgeting, but best practices include:

    • A gender needs assessment, including views and opinions from stakeholders and civil society representatives, of the extent to which government policies and programs meet gender equality needs, with a view to identifying priorities for policy action in the budgetary context.
    • An ex-ante assessment of individual budget measures or their impact on gender equality, in advance of their inclusion in the budget. The annual budget is accompanied with an official assessment, conducted by the central budget authority (or under its authority) of the budget’s overall impact in promoting gender equality, including a gender- disaggregated analysis of specific policy measures (both revenue- and expenditure-related).
    • Requirements prescribing that a minimum proportion of budget-related performance objectives and budgeted resources be allocated towards gender-responsive policies.
    • An ex-post impact assessment of individual budget measures of the extent to which gender equality is effectively promoted and/or attained through the policies set out in the annual budget. Ideally, this would come in the form of a gender audit of the budget conducted by an authority different from the central budget authority.

    What makes gender budgeting work well?

    • Gender budgeting must start with a needs assessment. Effective gender budgeting recognizes differences in women and men’s circumstances. For example, if more women live in poverty than men, then they should receive more welfare benefits. Or, if tax rebates are offered for childcare, the benefit might not reach the people who need this childcare support the most – women who are too poor to pay much in taxes and need childcare to increase their incomes.
    • Budgets should reframe spending on human capital as an “investment.” Government accounting lists spending on infrastructure as a capital investment but spending on human development (e.g., childcare) as an expenditure. Alternative gender-based budgets recognize that spending on human capital is also an investment. For example, in developed countries such as England, investment in free universal childcare (40 hours per week, for 48 weeks a year, to all pre-school children from the age of 6 months) could cut the gender pay gap by 3 percentage points and the employment gap by 5 percentage points.
    • Budget and tax cuts should be analyzed as much as expenditures. Cuts to public services impact women more severely than men because they earn less, live in greater poverty and rely in higher numbers on welfare benefits. This is often referred to as the “triple whammy” impact of cuts to social services: women are the primary users and deliverers of public services and most likely to pick up the slack when services are cut. Women are more likely to replace losses in public benefits with unpaid work, constraining women’s ability to participate in the labor force.  In the case of childcare, multiple factors must be assessed before governments propose solutions to budget cuts. For example, the benefits of tax rebates offered for childcare do not extend to women who are in low tax brackets. Consequently, if women cannot send their children to daycare, they cannot go out to work and earn a large enough income for tax exemptions. Also, tax cuts for fuel consumption may disproportionately benefit men because of the pattern of car ownership (they own larger vehicles and drive them more often).

    Why might gender budgeting not work well?

    • Gender budgeting should not just be about equally distributing government spending to men and women. To implement policy changes, gender budgeting analysis takes into account a range of identity factors such as age, education, language, ethnic backgrounds, geography, culture and income. By placing an emphasis on these intersectional factors, gender budgeting can create and inform better decision making that can improve conditions for women as well as other marginalized peoples. Equal distribution of resources would not address the differential needs of the different populations.
    • Gender budgeting should not simply list the areas of expenditure associated with “women’s issues.” While gender budgeting does call attention to issues such as childcare which has been framed historically as “women’s issues,” it also focuses on all of the ways that government budget and fiscal policy can have differential effects on women and men. For example, investment in infrastructure has a primary job creation benefit for men who dominate the construction trades. Another example can be taken from Canada’s labour market in 2005. If newcomers and women in Canada had been granted the same opportunities as men, personal income would have been $168 billion higher, an additional 1.6 million women would have been employed, and the GDP would have increased by 21%. Failure to create gender-sensitive budgets results in economic loss. Though many government policies are seemingly fair or well-intentioned, the consequences of not reviewing policies through a gender lens can generate inequalities and disadvantages.

    If governments do use gender budgeting, how can they avoid the pitfalls?

    • The Ministry of Finance (or equivalent) needs to lead gender budgeting. If the people who hold the purse strings and allocate the resources are not applying a gender lens to budgets, then the impact will be low. Gender budgeting cannot be relegated to the Ministry for the Status of Women or equivalent department. Ministries or departments of government must identify objectives consistent with gender-related development goals, adopt policies consistent with these goals, and fund programs to achieve them. It is also necessary to set measurable targets and track results.
    • Look to successful programs for inspiration. Many of the practices of developing countries – e.g., Rwanda – could be role models for developed economies. In Rwanda, the Ministry of Finance led the creation of gender budgeting pilots in four gender-sensitive ministries: education, health, agriculture, and infrastructure. Working within this framework, Rwanda improved on key education and health indicators at a faster rate than other African countries. One area of improvement was in land registration, which focused on providing an equal basis for women and men to make use of property for economic and other purposes. Indicators were set to measure progress, and a gender monitoring office evaluated outcomes and held ministries and other government entities accountable. Although not directly causal, the positive outcomes of persistent government involvement in Rwanda are indicative of how gender budgeting analysis in combination with fiscal policies can be used to achieve goals. While the specific issue of land ownership may not be relevant to all countries, we learn from Rwanda that a gender analysis of the budgets can highlight key bottlenecks and support policy changes.

    What can non-governmental organizations do to encourage governments to adopt gender budgeting?

    In the absence of adequate government efforts in gender budgeting, non-governmental and non-profit organizations can play a critical role in producing statistics, research, and assessments to provide policy leaders and government officials with the knowledge of how to further gender equality goals. One prominent example of a gender budgeting organization is the UK Women’s Budget Group. Started in 1989, this not-for-profit network includes academics, policy researchers, trade unionists, and activists, funded by donations, grants, and commissions, working in both paid and voluntary positions. The group’s analysis shed light on gender issues through an on-going dialogue with HM Treasury and more recently, as austerity measures were introduced in the Conservative government, with MPs. The group provides alternative plans that seek to address issues of inequality in absence of adequate government support of gender budgeting. However, while non-profit organizations such as the UK Women’s Budget Group can assist societies in promoting gender equality, more sustainable solutions require direct government involvement in gender budgeting processes.

    Conclusion

    While it is a start, it is not enough for a government to conduct gender impact assessments of budgets.

    Good assessments need to recognize that discrimination doesn’t have to be overt but may happen indirectly based on the unintended consequences of budgets.

    Gender budgeting draws our attention to the current gendered structures in our society that lead women to perform more unpaid work than men and to make economic sacrifices to manage childcare. Gender budgeting also encourages a process of engagement with politicians and civil society groups to ensure policies meet the needs of marginalized communities.The key insight from the workshop is that budgeting – through taxes and expenditures – can be an important tool for achieving greater social equality. Gender budgeting is the process by which these goals can be accomplished.

    [/fusion_text][fusion_separator style_type=”none” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” sep_color=”” top_margin=”20″ bottom_margin=”20″ border_size=”” icon=”” icon_circle=”” icon_circle_color=”” width=”” alignment=”center” /][fusion_button link=”https://www.gendereconomy.org/research-briefs/” text_transform=”” title=”” target=”_blank” link_attributes=”” alignment=”” modal=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” color=”custom” button_gradient_top_color=”#62bd19″ button_gradient_bottom_color=”#62bd19″ button_gradient_top_color_hover=”#00c2e2″ button_gradient_bottom_color_hover=”#00c2e2″ accent_color=”” accent_hover_color=”” type=”” bevel_color=”” border_width=”” size=”” stretch=”yes” shape=”” icon=”” icon_position=”left” icon_divider=”no” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=””]See more research briefs[/fusion_button][fusion_separator style_type=”none” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” sep_color=”” top_margin=”20″ bottom_margin=”20″ border_size=”” icon=”” icon_circle=”” icon_circle_color=”” width=”” alignment=”center” /][fusion_recent_posts layout=”default” hover_type=”none” columns=”3″ number_posts=”3″ offset=”0″ pull_by=”category” cat_slug=”research-briefs” exclude_cats=”” tag_slug=”” exclude_tags=”” thumbnail=”yes” title=”yes” meta=”no” meta_author=”no” meta_categories=”no” meta_date=”yes” meta_comments=”yes” meta_tags=”no” content_alignment=”” excerpt=”no” excerpt_length=”35″ strip_html=”yes” scrolling=”no” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” /][/fusion_builder_column][fusion_builder_column type=”1_4″ layout=”1_4″ spacing=”” center_content=”no” hover_type=”none” link=”” min_height=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”left top” background_repeat=”no-repeat” border_size=”0″ border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” last=”no”][fusion_title hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”briefsummary” id=”” content_align=”left” size=”3″ font_size=”” line_height=”” letter_spacing=”” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” text_color=”” style_type=”none” sep_color=””]

    Research brief prepared by

    Zainab Coovadia and Sarah Kaplan

    Published

    October 20, 2017

    [/fusion_title][fusion_widget_area name=”avada-custom-sidebar-researchbriefsidebar” title_size=”” title_color=”” background_color=”” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” /][/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]